09.23.07
Ahern and the Tribunal
So the spin spews forth. Example such as Brendan O’Connor in today’s SINDO argue that the Ahern is the innocent victim of a pointless witch hunt and that god help the man he was separated and its not fair.
1. Whatever about the Tribunal , the Rev are going to have some fun. The October 31 deadline is coming up for tax returns and I just filed mine. Every single €50 I get for minor radio interviews has to be accounted for. And he’s pissed off cos we’d like to know where he got the £50k in CASH from? My parents were audited in the early nineties, around about the time Bertie was dropping Celia off to the bank with a briefcase full of cash. The taxman went through my mother’s account at the local shop and claimed she couldn’t possibly be feeding her family on the low budget shown in the accounts. She had to explain how she fed us! And Bertie thinks we are supposed to accept he saved 50k in cash? Oh please. So fine, cancel the Tribunal, let the Rev in and publish the settlement in the paper. Hasn’t he already given them some money “on account”? He’ll have to make another lodgement to that account I reckon. He was the Minister for Finance and St. Luke’s was like some medieval counting house (oh ,except of course, they didn’t count, so they don’t know exactly how much they got).
2. Tom Gilmartin says that Eoin O’Callaghan told him he gave Bertie two payments of £50k and £30k. The Tribunal is asking Ahern the source of money,£50k and £30k which were lodged to his accounts. Why is that obscure? Why is that a waste of time? This is what the Tribunal is for. Seems quite logical to me. More logical than someone saving their entire salary ( what was left from the alimony) in cash in a safe over 5 years.
Joe said,
September 23, 2007 at 11:53 am
I agree – Ahern (I can’t refer to him as Bertie – it doesn’t feel right) is hiding something and it needs investigating. The only probelm is that thousands of others have done similar things and probably think he is a great man to get away with it “fair play to him”. The opposition are keeping fairly quiet so far – but I don’t think it does Ireland any good to have it’s leader acting in this way. How much longer will he be the leader?
Twenty Major said,
September 23, 2007 at 1:06 pm
1 – Brendan O’Connor is a fat prick.
2 – Anyone who believe Celia Larkin went into a bank with a suitcase full of money and didn’t look at it or count it is stupid beyond belief.
3 – Ahern’s arrogance, questioning the Tribunal and being obstructive, then complaining that he’s being picked on, is just staggering. Plus the fact he has to keep coming back because he can’t clear it up. If there was an easy, simple and legitimate explanation for all this we would still be talking about it.
CROOK.
Godiva said,
September 23, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Brendan O’Connor is shameless. No doubt he got orders from Anne Harris who got orders from whoever to take this tack but jesus, how does he hold his head up in public. He is a complete whore. He gives whores a bad name!
“They certainly don’t have any appetite to see posh law boys from posh schools — all of whom could buy and sell Mr Ahern — pruriently invading his struggle to get set up in a house again after his marriage break-up.”
Oh pluheeze spare us. Poor liddle Bwertie. The majority of lawyers in this country are not ‘posh law boys from posh schools’ and well he knows it – having gone to UCC himself from an ordinary background and knowing plenty of others from similar backgrounds who did law.
The Sindo is a dangerous rag that panders to all that is coarse in our society.
Fintan O’Toole said it best in the Times during the week, why are we giving this shyster the time of day. Truly, we get the culture we deserve and the politicians we vote for.
EastMeathMan said,
September 23, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I hope that FF/Bertie are going to declare the 7-8 pages of free advertising in the Sunday Indo. Even Marc Coleman is behind them now.
Tom Cosgrave said,
September 23, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Queue trenchant defence from The Crewser…
Ahern simply has to go – for him to remain as Taoiseach any longer will cause further damage to the office and to the reputation of the country. His changing of stories defies belief.
P O'Neill said,
September 23, 2007 at 4:59 pm
One of B. Ahern’s remaining advantages with the Tribunal is that because it’s forensic and not a criminal proceeding, the tribunal can’t present any alternative theory about what they think was actually going on. But Bertie can present his explanation, at best semi-coherent, without any direct refutation by the tribunal. So his tale of needing a house because he thought was going to be Taoiseach and then not needing it sits there as the dominant narrative, with only the pesky facts getting in the way — with Bertie then making his story vague enough to accommodate the facts.
But the hints of the alternative theory, and it’s only a theory, are there. That there were large undisclosed donations, including from abroad. The mystery $45K and Stg25K. That they were converted at exchange rates applicable for lower amounts to avoid more of a paper trail at AIB which the large conversions would have triggered. So B. Ahern is then sitting on all this liquid wealth that needs to be turned into something fast before the Rev or someone else starts asking questions — hence the idea of putting the money into a house, but the wheeze of having Wall buy it, acting for Bertie, with the transfer to Bertie arranged by the rent-to-own arrangement. Note the telling detail that Wall left the house to Bertie in his will, arguably displaying their joint understanding about who actually owned the house. If Bertie was having to directly refute this theory, and not just bat away the Tribunal SC’s inconsistencies one by one, he’d be looking a lot shakier.
student said,
September 23, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Pedants corner: Owen O’Callaghan.
Niall said,
September 23, 2007 at 10:13 pm
I don’t know. After the election, I just don’t really care anymore. I don’t know how much Bertie got, but he is clearly hiding something. At this point, we’re getting into WMD territory. The arguments and explanations just don’t hold up, but it appears as though certain sections of the press will continue to be the man’s cheerleader regardless of the ridiculous accounts he gives.
Bertie hasn’t been a bad Taoiseach by anyone’s standards, but he’s been a slippery bastard. He’s had a chance to explain these weird banking practices, and he hasn’t. He should resign soon, while only question marks float over his head. If he waits much longer, there’ll be a piano.
nunzio bagliere said,
September 23, 2007 at 10:21 pm
ALL MEN MOVE TO NEW YORK STATE AND GET MARRIED AS YOU ARE PROTECTED UNDER NEW YORK STATE FAMILY LAW!! I NOW GET ALIMONY FROM MY EX WIFE AS SHE LEFT ME BEING DISABLED RULED BY NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT!! ONE DAY SHE DROVE ME HOME AND SAID ” HONEY I WILL BE RIGHT BACK I AM GOING TO THE STORE” AS I WALKED INTO A VACATED HOUSE. THANKS NEW YORK TO PROTECT THE DISABLED. FROM NUNZIO BAGLIERE I RESIDE IN SYRACUSE N.Y. PLEASE RESPOND TO E MAIL NUNZIO7@VERIZON.NET PH 315 350 9047
Twenty Major said,
September 23, 2007 at 10:58 pm
I think Nunzio is just saying what we’re all feeling.
leon said,
September 24, 2007 at 8:54 am
Yes, I knew that the catholic church would come in to this somewhere, after all Bertie is a good catholic (apart from the ’separation’, sex outside marriage, lying, cheating, etc, etc), but of course he is goin’ to heaven for protecting the church from 100 miilions of sex abuse payments, protecting their right to restrict and deny access to schools, cause traffic chaos across dublin each morning (with all the parents diving kids to schools that aren’t the nearest which due to the class segregation that the catholic church supports and venerates, not to mentionthe 12,000 teachers who drive to school as an example to their students)
Basically, everything in ireland is the fault of
a/ FF
b/ Bertie and Charlie
c/ teachers
d/ catholicism/catholic church
e/ independence from the rest of british isles
f/ eddie o’sullivan
g/ hector
h/ the independent newpaper group
i/ fast food
j/ estate agents/developers
k/ farmers
Jesus, it is monday morning after all.
Pete said,
September 24, 2007 at 10:47 am
The people of Ireland have stated very recently, through the medium of the general election, that they don’t care if Bertie is corrupt. They gave him a mandate in full knowledge of that fact. So he should not resign.
Tomaltach said,
September 24, 2007 at 11:07 am
I have to agree with Pete. The Irish electorate have a tolerance or even a certain regard for the cute hoor and the brass neck. (Lowry / Flynn provide embody the evidence for this). Despite more than a decade of filth being dredged up in the Tribunals, no culture of political integrity has caught on. Political donations was on the radar, then disappeared through lack of public interest. Freedom of information was enacted then gutted when confidence returned to the brass necks. And during an election campaign a frightening rattle comes from the Taoiseach’s wardrobe and the opposition, knowing the public have no interest, cover there eyes. So Bertie will get away with telling stories that cannot be believed. The public will take it because in this wretched country most people see the disfigured cities from corrupt planning, and see a political system creeking from lack of transparency, and you know what, deep down they don’t give a shite. All of which is why I passionately believe that the Tribunal circus which has made so many lard-assed lawyers exceedingly rich, should be wound up ASAP. For anyone concerned about political integrity or ethics in office the whole thing is a prolonged version of torture and frustration – and is costing a bomb to boot.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
September 24, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Harry McGee has a good take of Bertie’s third day at the Tribunal:
“And the answers? Every time he spoke a thick fog descended on the armoury room in Dublin castle. Once you began wading into it you were hopelessly lost. Ahern gave a masterful display of incoherence, using all the tricks in his bag including sentences without subjects or objects, often without verbs and sometimes with six or seven different clauses, none of which were related to each other.”
http://www.harrymcgee.com/2007/09/inside-politics-another-column-devoted.html
The Crewser said,
September 24, 2007 at 3:03 pm
The Irish Times (yes of Kennedygate fame) last week described Bertie as masterful. And he has been and the public have responded as we knew they would. Very supportive. Most of you lot would not be able to remember what you did last week or last year. But Bertie is expected to go back to the mid nineties and remember every little detail. And what about the rat in the ranks of the Tribunal who leaked the details to Geraldine Kennedy. He is in there, laughing his head off, free as a bird, trying to fit up or frame up Bertie.
This man has worked tirelessly for the the good of this country. The least we could do is show a little gratitude. Leave the begrudgery to Anthony and Gavin over at the hopelesslly faltering Public Inquiry. They are good at that type of thing. And good pals with Harry McGee of the Examiner may I add.
Hang in there Bertie, the vast majority of decent folk are with you.
Tom Cosgrave said,
September 24, 2007 at 3:43 pm
As predicted, here’s The Crewser…
I expect Bertie Ahern, a member of the Cabinet in 1994 and as the head Government that represents me to the world, I expect him to remember every single detail of every single punt he got from businessmen, innocent or not, so that he can prove, and I can know, whether my Taoiseach (because regardless of my political affiliations, that is what he is) is corrupt or not.
When he wibbles and changes his story more than once, that’s one thing. But when he changes it multiple times and claims to have no precise memory of what occurred, that is something else altogether.
Ahern has to go, Crewser – he has damaged the office of Taoiseach, which has had enough damage done to it by Haughey.
Tomaltach said,
September 24, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Relax all. The Crewser has his tongue curled firmly into his mischievous cheek. No one whose brain functions well enough to log on to a computer could possibly write that Bertie has worked tirelessly for the good of the country without doing it merely to incite a flame or perhaps coax a laugh from the reader.
Dan Sullivan said,
September 24, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Bertie can’t remember why he was changing sums of his own money that amounted to much more than most people’s yearly income (I was a mere slip of a go-getting software person back then and 30K sterling was much more than I was earning or most of the people I know were earning) before tax back and forth into sterling and moving it about from one bank account to another. Did it never occur to Bertie when he set up the tribunal back in 1997 to have a quick gander at his own accounts or transactions and make a note of why he had done this and that just in case the tribunal ever turned to look in his direction. After all that was only 2 years after he had bought his gaff and it would all have been fresh in his mind. Apparently not, he didn’t write anything done or even reflect on it.
And let’s remember we’ve been repeatedly told that Bertie has only ever been a public rep, he’s not some wheeler dealer auctioneer who makes it his business to dealing in large sums of cash unlike many TDs, his sole income was from being a public rep, and he appears to have only bought 2 houses in his entire life but when it comes to the second purchase he can’t seem to recall anything with any surety. Also if Wall bought the house and there was an agreement that Bertie would or could buy it at a later date at a fixed price then wasn’t Wall just acting as a proxy?
So to go back to the most basic facts, there is an allegation that the Taoiseach received large sums of money from a named individual.
There is proof and an admission from the Taoiseach that he handled large sums of money at that time but he can neither recall why nor prove where these sums came from. If he has a reasonable explanation why doesn’t he present it?
As for the electorate, yes there is a portion a minority of the Irish electorate who wouldn’t believe Bertie or any member of FF ever did anything wrong if he stood on the steps of Dublin Caste and chop off Mary McAleese head with a bread knife with the TV cameras present giving us all a talk-through “aa, I’m hitting the spine now, it’s getting kinda tough crunchy”. There are also people who believe that Michelle Smith was a victim of an international witch hunt, the X case was put up job, and that Sue Ellen shot JR but her sister took the rap.
Niall said,
September 24, 2007 at 4:42 pm
“But Bertie is expected to go back to the mid nineties and remember every little detail” – Crewser on Bertie’s receipt of 80k.
Another few months worth of comments, and Sarah will have no choice but to create a page of Crewser quotes.
The Crewser said,
September 24, 2007 at 6:58 pm
The lynch mob are definitely back in force, more hawkish and raspish than before. Their begrudging demeanour will not allow them appreciate an exceptional talent when one comes along.But Bertie has delivered a hat trick for Fianna Fail, fortunately for the Country’s sake. The prosperity and peace which have marked Bertie’s tenure will mark the man out long after the lynch mobsters are silenced.
Niall said,
September 24, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Crewser, I’d be interested to see what would happen if you applied for a job with the Sindo. Regardless of what’s in your cheek, I’d imagine your writings would go down well with those lovely chaps.
The Crewser said,
September 24, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Niall, there was one Cruiser with that lot for many a long year. I’d be far too Nationalistically minded to mingle with Aunguish Fanning and co. but at least they do recognise a witch hunt when they see one which is something I suppose.
Godiva said,
September 24, 2007 at 8:19 pm
FF is a religion. No questions, gotta have faith. And none moreso than John Waters, chief defender of the faith in the Times today. One big blind spot. Can’t help wondering sometimes if he needs a lobotomy. Intellectual acuity out the window.
Gotta love Harry McGee!
Godiva said,
September 24, 2007 at 8:24 pm
“they do recognise a witch hunt when they see one which is something I suppose”
Oh yeh. Nothing to do with Tony O’Reilly’s machinations and manipulations at all. You scratch my backside Bert…
The Crewser said,
September 24, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Maybe the Sindo crew just woke up one day and decided they just could not back all that dead wood that passes for an opposition in this country. And of course Enda Kenny’s clearout just stopped short of what was needed. He’s still there himself.
Godiva said,
September 24, 2007 at 8:50 pm
“Maybe the Sindo crew just woke up one day and decided they just could not back all that dead wood that passes for an opposition in this country.”
Could be you over-estimate Anguish, Brenny and Co. Seems clear they just carry out orders.
Is this not something of a U-turn for Brendan O’Connor? Was there not some altercation involving him and Bertie and a plane a few years ago – before Sir Anto and Bertie made their little pact. Details anyone?
Tom N said,
September 24, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Ahern is like a child who has been caught stealing sweets and is making up fibs as he goes along. If we don’t take that crap from a seven year old child, why should we take it from our supposed leader?
dc said,
September 25, 2007 at 7:49 am
Tom N., that’s the $64,000 question, exactly. I’m not Irish, but I did wonder how he could re-elected when all this shit was already hitting the fan before the elections. I know he only got 41% of the votes. But what were 41% of Irish voters thinking?
I am puzzled. Unless there was intense spin going on in the media that were pro-Ahern…
Ah well….if Bush could steal an election, why not Ahern.
Tomaltach said,
September 25, 2007 at 8:06 am
Crewser, I’ll agree with this much. Bertie is one of the most astute political operators we’ve ever seen. His achievements for his party, reuniting them after ruinous splits, and leading them to victory in three successive elections, are astounding feats by any measure. His talent for forging a compromise is unparalleled. He does this by his ability to fugde and not take any stand. These are not always the qualities needed in a Leader.
He was not responsible for the Celtic Tiger, but happily for him, his term coincided with it.
Neither did he create peace in Northern Ireland – many of the real risks were taken by others and taken earlier. But his dedication to see the job through was unquestionable.
The trouble with Bertie is his contempt for democracy, his abhorence of transparency, his utter disregard for integity – all this at a time when our democracy needs a major makeover. 500 state bodies – almost all boards and heads appointed. On merit? Hardly, pure patronage. A Senate that has become worse than a joke. A Dáil that fails pitifully to hold government to account. In an increasingly complex society and political system, no real local government. Just a shower of shysters (Galways co. council where the water was poinonous for most of the summer broke up in acrumony last night when it descended into more or less a Brawl. Sligo’s co co. sent nearly 2 dozen members on a junket around Norway because they needed to build a few peers and the Norweigan’s, they claimed, were experts.) And so on. We desperately need leadership who want to drag our democracy into this century and make it fit for the challenges it faces. Without a rugged, robust and more effective democracy, we have no hope, none at all, of getting the reforms we need in the public service. With the likes of Ahern, who sees democracy and accountability as a nuisance preventing him from running his own little show, there is no hope for making the changes we need.
Gordon Davies said,
September 25, 2007 at 11:16 am
The principal conclusion we can make from the recent election is that 41% of the electorat have:
- used FF to get planning permission, with or without brown envelopes, or;
- at some time recieved undeclared payments for services rendered, or;
- do not declare all their income to the Revenue, or;
- have hidden money so that the Family Court can’t include it in a settlement, or;
- changed money privately rather than going through a bank (Bartholemews latest version, or;
- used their influence to gain an advantage, sinecure or other benefit for a friend/contributor, or beneffited from said influence, or;
- given useful but possibly confidential information to friends and casual acquaintances, or;
- have a personal interest in the continued development of the grey economy, or;
- benfited directly or indirectly, or enabled others to benefit (ie that well known confidence trickster C. Haughey) from the misuse of public funds, or ;
and so on…. This seems a reasonable suposition and seems to coincide with personal observation.
One could also point out that Bartholemew’s long experience of managing an organisation on the very outer margins of legality, constitutionality, fiscal rectitude and ethical probity made him uniquely qualified to negotiate with both the political representatives of of terrorists and the uniquely corrupt administration in the North.
He is a blot on the political landscape, as are all his accomplices who are beginning to worry that their place at the trough might not be available in the near future. He should resign.
Gordon
The Crewser said,
September 25, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Tom Gilmartin who is primarily responsible for bringing abot a situation where the Taoiseach of the country has to try and remember day to day bank dealings that others are never required to do. Matters which have nothing to do with what is supposed to be being investigated by this Tribunal. The Taoiseach was never asked by the Tribunal team about Mr Gilmartin’s claim that he received monies from Developer Owen O’Callaghan. Clearly the Tribunal, biased as they are against the Taoiseach (one amongst them ratted to Geraldine Kennedy who went on to try and policitally assassinate Mr Ahern) know that Gilmartin’s allegations are false. Gilmartin has form of course, one being described by a Judge in an Irish courtroom as a compulsive liar. Leopards don’t change their spots. Neither does Tom Gilmartin.
But it gives this discredited Tribunal the opportunity have a go at the best Taoiseach this country has ever seen. The man stands head and shoulders above each and every one of the begrudgers who would have him condemned.
He has given a lifetime of service to this country and the decent Irish public knew that on May 24th last when they re-elected him as Taoiseach.
Tom Gilmartin has lots of reasons to be a begrudger of course being a failed property Developer. Others who failed at various things picked themselves up and started out again. But Tom chose the road of begrudgery and constant compusive lying to try and overcome his failures.
One of these days even the biased, politicised and discredited Mahon Tribunal will realise that too.
Tom Cosgrave said,
September 25, 2007 at 12:20 pm
the biased, politicised and discredited Mahon Tribunal
Who were appointed by a Fianna Fáil government – who even made Alan Mahon SC a judge in order for him to chair it!
The Taoiseach (my Taoiseach) can’t give a straight explanation as to how he got large sums of cash – he has changed his story again and again. It is not credible for him to remain in office – he has to go, for the good of the office and of the country.
From all that you say Crewser, I can only surmise that you are not remotely loyal to the office of Taoiseach, merely to the individual and the party of the individual presently in it.
Also – I see Michael Collins, the former Limerick Fianna FáÃl TD has gone on trial today – I await your defence of him with much interest…since you seem to be so loyal to Fianna Fáil, surely there will be one forthcoming?
Tomaltach said,
September 25, 2007 at 12:49 pm
the Taoiseach of the country has to try and remember day to day bank dealings that others are never required to do
1.How can you make equivalence between the Taoiseach and some unspecified others? Who cares what ‘others’ do?
2.He is not being asked to talk about his day to day banking. He’s being asked to talk about three or four enormous sums of cash which slushed through his accounts when finance minister. He admits they were memorable (how could they be anything else). So far he cannot explain what was going on.
The Crewser said,
September 25, 2007 at 1:07 pm
What a load of of old bolony from Tomaltach. This is not about what someone had in their bank account, what they took out or changed on a particular day back in the mid nineties. No this witch hunt is about getting at the Taoiseach of this country on the say so of a compulsive liar, Tom Gilmartin. Why was the Taoiseach not asked about Gilmartin’s allegations. I’ll tell you why he wasn’t asked. Because they were false like most of Gilmartins other claims. But the Tribunal are protecting this individual so they can do down a decent man who has served this country well. So put aside your bias and your begrudgery Tomaltach and cop on to what the real agenda is. The Irish people gave the thumbs down to all this bitching last May and believe me if Bertie decided to contest another Election they would do so again.
Sarah said,
September 25, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Personally I couldn’t care less how many people voted for Fianna Fail. A 90% vote, never mind a 40% vote doesn’t change the facts.
The man was the Minister for Finance while tens of thousands pounds was poured through accounts that was undeclared as income.
I want to know when the audit will take place and what the settlement will be.
It’s not a witch hunt, its the law.
As for the allegations, I think forcing Ahern to establish the source of cash, which precisely matches Gilmartin’s claims, is hardly a witchhunt either.
Godiva said,
September 25, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Crewser, who are you trying to convince, yourself or everyone else? I hear the Scientologists have an opening.
Tomaltach said,
September 25, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Crewser, I’ll agree on this much. The Tribunal is a waste of time and should be scrapped. It is the wrong mechanism for dealing with corruption. It has become no more than a machine for making lawyers fat and making easy work for certain media commentators. Despite all the evidence of corruption (leaving Ahern aside for a moment) there is no way the Tribunals have created a culture wherein integrity and transparency are key value for holders of high office. It sounded great in the begining, but ethics and probity for office holders never caught on. So the Tribunals, costly and slow, have failed in what was surely their primary aim. So if it’s wound up tomorrow, I’d be clapping loudly.
But the fact remains, as Sarah says, the Finance Minister was accepting huge bundles of cash from businessmen. Now he’s Taoiseach. If the Tribunals have failed to make ethics an issue, as I argue, then let not the rest of us fail as well. For it is an issue. You forget the cost of this failure. The cost is a broken democracy. It is disfigured cities. It is dysfunctional public agencies. It is bad strategy. It is unfairness.
I don’t blame Ahern for all these things. But if we cannot make integrity stick with the Taoiseach, where do we start, the county councils? Surely no one will be listening then.
We have to start somewhere. Bertie, decent and all in many ways, has too much doubt over his probity. He’s Taoiseach and therefore that’s unacceptable. So we start with him.
And by the way, your hagiograhic depiction of Ahern bears no serious analysis.
Paul Newton said,
September 25, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Sure lads of course it’s wrong… even crewser knows that… but the point is we don’t care.. as long as on balance bertie is doing a reasonable job and not frightening the horses..then we really don’t give a monkeys.
Corruption is one of the basic tenets of democracy… how else do you think the wheels of government get oiled?
and if they are not corrupted by money they are corrupted by the promise of votes and support.
re Gordon’s polemic above… if you can find someone somewhere who has not used their influence to gain an advantage I’ll mint you a medal myself… there’s monks at it in burma today.
Gordon Davies said,
September 25, 2007 at 5:24 pm
What witch hunt? If Bartholemew had given a convincing explanation of the source of those lodgements when he was first asked then the whole affair would be dead and buried. He failed to convince the Tribunal, who pursued their enquiries. They waited for years to get full disclosure. Every time Ahern gave an explanation it was immediately proven to be erroneous by some fairly elementary journalistic investigation. Even now, we have yet to obtain a satisfactory account of Ahern’s financial affairs. The Tribunal should be congratulated for their tenacity. It looks increasingly as though Bartholemew has been trying to dissimulate income from sources he does not want the public to know about.
Corruption is not a basic tenet of democracy, it is an efficient means of subverting and undermining democracy. Which is why all payments to elected representatives should be at least declared and under strict control. politiocians should not use their office for pêrsonal gain. FF does not agree with this, and have consistently displayed a less than convincing attachement to this basic principle of democracy.
There would of course be some justification if FF were doing a good job. I would argue that they have misused and wasted the openings created by other parties actions and that the “Celtic Tiger” will go down as one of the the great wasted opportunities of history.
There is, of course Peter, some justification for using influence to guide decsions in a favourable direction. However there are limits to this and appointing generous friends who have given undeclared sums to individual politicians to public positions is way over the limit.
Gordon
The Crewser said,
September 25, 2007 at 5:32 pm
The begrudgery and bitchiness we are witnessing on this site is beginning to leave Anthony Sheridan and co. over on Public Inquiry in the halfpenny place. The only saving grace here is that points of view which are not in agreement with the headed pieces are allowed appear. Anthony and Gavin operate a censorship policy.
Thankfully what we are seeing is emanating from the same sources as did similar comment before and during the election campaign.
It reminds me a little of what’s happening to the Irish Rugby team at the World cup.
Or rather what the French media have succeeded in doing to our team.
We have a man (Tom Gilmartin) who is the Tribunal’s star witness. Agreed by all including a District Court Judge to be a compulsive liar. This man has made countless allegations against many people and as the days pass by it is beginning to emerge that this mans story is a tissue of lies.
It is totally wrong that this mans word has been responsible for bringing our Taoiseach (possibly the best Taoiseach since the state was founded)
What money the Taoiseach did or did not have at any stage during his lifetime is by and large his own business. He fell on hard times and was helped out by his pals. Good for him. That’s the way it is in Ireland. We look after our own. We still do, thank God.
In the early nineties the era we are taking about I myself developed a gambling addiction. It became progressively worse and despite holding down a very responsible and stressful job I managed to hide my problem from just about everybody in my circle except my partner ultimately. I was quite well paid at the time but I earned my money through hard work over long hours. My gambling eventually brought me to the point where I was suicidal and ready to throw in the towel. I was saved by a chance meeting I had with a wonderful Doctor who was not my GP.
In the mid nineties on one particular day I won £20,000.00 on an accumulator bet. I did not tell a soul about that at the time. I was certainly not as well paid at that time as a TD was but yet I was able to make massive amounts of money by paying for good information about Horse racing. It all came crashing down five or six years later when I thought I was invincible and it ended almost in suicide.
The revenue commissioners never knew I had a gambling problem, they got their cut through the Turf Accountants but they would have been quite happy to take a further cut if my winnings were ever lodged in a Bank. They never were, thankfully I had a method of storing my cash safely. But eventually I helped improve Paddy Powers balance sheet to the point where I could not go on.
I mention this to put all you smug people who want to see Bertie Ahern destroyed over something that is alleged to have happened many years ago on notice that even then there were major cash transactions going on which did not involve illegality or corruption or dodging of income tax. The wise guys who are doing the same thing to Ronan O’Gara in France have some semblance of a reason for doing it but you guys who think you know it all would want to sit back and take a few deep breaths because some day you may encounter a problem like I had in your family or in your close circle. If I ever have to go to a Tribunal (I have been to one) I certainly will not be announcing to the World what my past problems were to satisfy some lying towrag who might try to set me up. Tom Gilmartin is a lying towrag. It’s time to give Bertie Ahern a break. He is not perfect but he has done much for this little country of ours.
Gordon Davies said,
September 25, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Crewser,
1. You were never Minister for Finance. If you had been your gambling addiction would have been of public interest, and a legitimate concern.
2.The origin of the investigation is irrelevant. If Bartholemeew had given a credible explanation for the large sums of cash he was receiving the affair would be over and done with. He did not give a credible explanation, and the Tribunal were right to pursue their investigations. Unless of course you believe that it is of no moment that the Minister in charge of the currency, at that time floating within the EMS, appears to have been involved in major foreign currency transactions for his own personal gain, and was in receipt of monies from businessmen who stood to make substantial gains from succesfully speculating.
3. There has been no demonstration that Ahern ever fall on hard times. When he received money from acquaintances, many of whom subsequently benefited from FF patronage, a paymnt which became known as “the dig out” he had the equivalent of a year’s salary stashed away in cash (possibly so that such money did not have to be declared to Family Court).
4. It is a permanent concern in any democracy that the source of public representative’s wealth should be known to the public. Until FF prove that they have taken this principle on board their atitude to democracy will rermain ambiguous.
5. I agree that this Government’s situation has many points in common with that of the Irish rugby team. Many years of spin cannot hide the fact that the FF government has won a series of minor victories ( the equivalent of the Triple Crown, not really a real competition more a consolation for not winning the Championship), but now that the serious competition has started they are shown to be poorly prepared, poorly motivated and badly managed. THe legacy of O’Sulivan will be evaluated when he retires – at present he has won no major competition. In the same way, Ahern’s legacy has yet to be determined. He has surfed a wave of un-parralleled but maybe short-lived wealth creation that was not of his making. He has singularily failed to use the countries wealth to prepare for the inevitable difficultie that lie ahead.
Gordon
The Crewser said,
September 25, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Every single contributor has evaded the central point in relation to Bertie Aherns appearance at the Tribunal. It is as a result of a jealous, frustrated, vexatious compulsive liar called Tom Gilmartin. A failed property Developer who has decided to vent his spleen on anybody and everybody who did not accept his method of doing things. So Gordon don’t be giving me any of your old bullshit about side issues. The fact is that Bertie Ahern should not have been before the Tribunal. He has done nothing wrong by reference to the Tribunals terms of reference. He has no obligation to answer matter which are outside the scope of this discredited Tribunal.It is time for the Mahon Tribunal to answer a few questions itself in relation to Tom Gilmartin, a cheating, lying vindictive individual. And also it needs to clear out from its ranks the rat who leaked documents to Geraldine Kennedy.
Knowing where you are coming from Gordon I do not expect you to understand. You are more at home on the Public Inquiry Blog where only those who agree with Anthony Sheridan are welcome
Tomaltach said,
September 26, 2007 at 9:03 am
Crewser,
The Tribunal is such a cash cow for the lawyers that they will pursue any avenue, any link, however remotely related to its terms, in order to perpetuate the fortunes they are creaming from it. That is one reason why I argue the whole thing should be scrapped. You are right that Gilmartin, to say the least, is an unreliable witness.
But I cannot see the logic in your argument that because the witness who dragged Ahern in is a liar, the subsequent revelations, not dependent on Gilmartin’s evidence, are inconsequential. Whether revealed in an inwieldly, farcical Tribunal, or otherwise, the key point remains that the Minister for Finance compromised his office by taking huge cash payments from businessmen. Now, he cannot explain it.
You are irked that every contributor failed to acknowledge the problem with Gilmartin. You seem obsessed with the credibility of the Tribunal and one of its witnesses and wholly unconcerned about the credibility of the man who holds the highest executive office in the country.
Tom Cosgrave said,
September 26, 2007 at 10:10 am
I said previously that I could surmise only that The Crewser is not remotely loyal to the office of Taoiseach, merely to the individual and the party of the individual presently in it. He’s not given me any reason to change my mind.
Also, there is no defence of Michael Collins either – I am presuming one will be forthcoming from The Crewser, but perhaps he can actually see something wrong with offshore accounts created for the purposes of evading tax?
Gordon Davies said,
September 26, 2007 at 10:31 am
Crewser,
I see you are taking the moral indignation line as reccomended by FF Central Office. Are you seriously suggesting that when misdemeanours are discovered they should not be pursued because the investigation commenced from unreliable information. For example, should a conviction for drunk driving be quashed because the Garda stopped a car that was exceeding the speed limit, if the driver subsequently proves he was not driving too fast?
Gilmartin’s evidence may, in some instances, be unreliable, but once a serious accusation was made, the Tribunal could not dismiss it out of hand. they had to investigate. When they did they found suspicious transactions in Ahern’s financial records. His explanations did not tally with other evidence. Ahern was receiving money for his own personal gain when he was a Government Minister. He was at the time responsible for managing the national currency at a time when businessmen could make or lose by speculating (for perfectly legitimate reasons) on variations in exchange rates. In such circumstances a Government Minister should not be in receipt of monies (even unsollicted sums) following a private consultation to a select band of businessmen. Furthermore, it is inappropriate, to say the least, that private individuals to whom a Government Minister is financially beholden, should be nominated to public positions when the payments (even in the form of loan).
Unfortunately for Ahern, these transactions passed through the banks, who kept records. Judging by the amount of his “savings”, and his apparent lack of surprise when people arrive in his office with a suitcase full of cash, there was a lot more, unrecorded, cash passing through his hands.
I could not help but laugh when reading the account of yesterday’s proceedings in which Paul Sreenan SC, counsel for Owen O’Callaghan said “that persons who were telling the truth did not vary the details of their story”. He was referring to Mr Gilmartin, but the comment could well apply to Ahern.
Gordon
Gordon Davies said,
September 26, 2007 at 10:35 am
Crewser,
I see you are taking the moral indignation line as recomended by FF Central Office. Are you seriously suggesting that when misdemeanours are discovered they should not be pursued because the investigation commenced from unreliable information. For example, should a conviction for drunk driving be quashed because the Garda stopped a car that was exceeding the speed limit, if the driver subsequently proves he was not driving too fast?
Gilmartin’s evidence may, in some instances, be unreliable, but once a serious accusation was made, the Tribunal could not dismiss it out of hand. they had to investigate. When they did they found suspicious transactions in Ahern’s financial records. His explanations did not tally with other evidence. Ahern was receiving money for his own personal gain when he was a Government Minister. He was at the time responsible for managing the national currency at a time when businessmen could make or lose by speculating (for perfectly legitimate reasons) on variations in exchange rates. In such circumstances a Government Minister should not be in receipt of monies (even unsollicted sums) following a private consultation to a select band of businessmen. Furthermore, it is inappropriate, to say the least, that private individuals to whom a Government Minister is financially beholden, should be nominated to public positions when the payments (even in the form of loan).
Unfortunately for Ahern, these transactions passed through the banks, who kept records. Judging by the amount of his “savings”, and his apparent lack of surprise when people arrive in his office with a suitcase full of cash, there was a lot more, unrecorded, cash passing through his hands.
I could not help but laugh when reading the account of yesterday’s proceedings in which Paul Sreenan SC, counsel for Owen O’Callaghan said “that persons who were telling the truth did not vary the details of their story”. He was referring to Mr Gilmartin, but the comment could well apply to Ahern.
Gordon
V said,
September 26, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Crewser,
How do you have time to write all this crap when you are down at the tribunal so much and due back in the Dail any day now?
The Crewser said,
September 26, 2007 at 2:17 pm
There is crap in abundance but it is not on this side of the fence. Now I see it looks as if Tom Gilmartin is being prompted by certain media people on what evidence he should give. That would tally with the Kennedygate saga as well. He is being assisted by both the media and it would seem at least one member of the Tribunal. But you guys are not worried about trivialities like that. Be assured however that Bertie is not going anywhere, any time soon. He has a mandate to govern and that he will do until a time of his choosing. By the way Starry O’Brien has joined Gilmartin’s team also. That should help him.
Tom Cosgrave said,
September 26, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Crewser – you’ve ignored, so I’ll ask.
Are you more loyal to Bertie Ahern than the office of An Taoiseaach?
Did Fianna FáÃl not make Alan Mahon SC a judge in order for him to chair the Tribunal?
What comments have you to make regarding the trial for former Fianna Fáil TD Michael Collins?
The Crewser said,
September 26, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Tom Cosgrave my apologies for missing your question amidst all the crap that has come in since yesterday. I am intensely Loyal to the office of Taoiseach and equally so in relation to Mr Ahern. A decent man with a fairly frugal lifestyle, a bit like myself really apart from the period when I had a gambling addiction. Everybody gets ill at one time or other. Yes Fianna Fail did appoint Alan Mahon to chair the Tribunal but they dont own or control him in a political way if thats what you are driving at. Alan Mahon is as embarrassed as anybody else about what the Tribunal has turned into but there is nothing he can do about it. He has no power to wind it up. You would be embarassed too if you had Tom Gilmartin as your star witness but thats the way Tribunals are. Alan Mahon is intensely embarrassed about having as one of the team a rat (whose name is known at this stage) who is prepared to leak confidential and sensitive material to the media to character assassinate the Taoiseach. But there is nothing he can do about that either as Geraldine Kennedy has burned the evidence. Alan Mahon is in a tricky position now. I would not like to be him.
As regards Michael Collins ex TD I have never met the man but if he has broken any laws he should face due process and get a fair trial. I trust the Court will rely on dependable witnesses and not compulsive liars. I know they will.
Others who were sitting TD’s and Ministers escaped justice for doing despicable things, much worse than Michael Collins. Do the names Donegan and Stagg ring any bells for you Tom. Perhaps you empathised with their activities.
Now I think I have answered your question.
Sarah said,
September 26, 2007 at 7:33 pm
hmmm still nothing from Crewser on the small matter of the tax liability….
Bock the Robber said,
September 27, 2007 at 12:27 am
I don’t know about you, but back in the early Nineties my normal attire was an anorak and a duffel-bag full of money. It was the same with all my friends. We all had the price of a house in a bag, and I doubt if one man-jack of us could remember when and where we changed the price of a house in Irish pounds into the price of a house in British pounds.
Come on now. Get real! Can you honestly remember every single time you got the price of a house in cash from your well-wishers?
Of course not. And it isn’t fair to be asking Bertie to remember either.
The other thing I can’t remember is all the times I changed a Finance Bill to reduce a single construction company’s tax bill when I was Minister for Finance.
Jesus, if I had to recall these little details, I’d be up all night, and I bet you’d be the very same.
The Crewser said,
September 27, 2007 at 7:48 am
Sarah, I think you’ll find that the little matter of tax was cleared up some time ago. In any event that is a matter between any individual and the Revenue.
There is no end to the depths you guys will drop to, to try and find some way of doing down Mr Ahern. If Bertie ever made any mistakes at any stage and I’m sure its possible that he may have, he has more than made up for them in terms of the unrivalled service he has given to the Irish people as Labour Minister, Finance Minister and latterly and most impressively as Taoiseach of this Country. But its nice to know that Kenny, Gilmore and co. are starting off in the same negative and begruding frame of mind which lost FG and Labour the last election. By the time that Bertie hands over the baton to a new leader in two years time or thereabouts FF will already have the next election won. And the opposition will be wondering where they went wrong. If you have any influence over them Sarah and I doubt if you have you could tell them that its time for them to formulate a few new policies rather than concentrating on attacking a Government which has delivered for the Irish people.
Andrew said,
September 27, 2007 at 11:08 am
‘If Bertie ever made any mistakes at any stage and I’m sure its possible that he may have, he has more than made up for them in terms of the unrivalled service he has given to the Irish people as Labour Minister, Finance Minister and latterly and most impressively as Taoiseach of this Country’
This forgive and forget, anyone-can-make-a-mistake mode of the Crewsers sits very badly with his continuing snide digs (at least 3 to date) at the expense of Emmet Stagg. There are, it seems, Fianna Fail weaknesses – forgetfulness about tax, overenthusiasm for the geegees – and other weaknesses, that are less forgivable.
Well, give me private foibles that really are private any time – Ministers for Finance and Taoisigh can’t afford financial faux pas of any kind.
Tom Cosgrave said,
September 27, 2007 at 11:24 am
Actually, in terms of perception of abiding by the law and regardless of whether he broke the law or not, I believe Emmet Stagg should have resigned. I can’t see why Donegan was brought up though – he may have been foolish, but all he did was express an opinion.
But neither of these incidents come anywhere near close to the impropriety of accepting undeclared monies from businessmen while a member of Dáil Eireann, and then proceeding to tell contradictory stories about said monies.
By the way Crewser, I brought him up not because I wished to insinuate he was in the control of Fianna Fáil but because I wished to demonstrate that he was not. He was appointed by Fianna FáÃl, but you have suggested in this argument that the Mahin Tribunal is biased – I interpret that as suggesting that Mahon himself is biased, which you appear to have changed your mind about later on in this argument. Incidentially, I am most interested at your relating of what Mahon thinks or feels – do you know him?
I am intensely Loyal to the office of Taoiseach and equally so in relation to Mr Ahern.
This, I believe is Crewser’s problem. He has divided loyalties, and is choosing to defend Ahern over the office he occupies.
The motion of no confidence as laid down last night was interesting. I think Kathleen Lynch TD of Labour said it best – it won’t be the Opposition that see the departure of Ahern as Taoiseach, it won’t be the coalition partners of the Fianna Fáil government – it will be the Fianna Fáil men and women who were sitting beside Ahern last night defending him.
Bock the Robber said,
September 27, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I notice that Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, is under investigation by police.
Is it for receiving a pile of cash? you ask.
No. It’s because somebody gave him a good price on an apartment.
The police are investigating their prime minister, not because he lied to a tribunal or was given a potato-sack full of money by a crowd of property developers.
God no. He just bought a flat and they think the deal was a bit tricky.
That’s foreigners for you. Strange people.
The Crewser said,
September 27, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Tom Cosgrave, your piece requires immediate answer. You may not be aware of it but Paddy Donegan was Minister for Defence in this state and provoked a Constitutional crisis by his “thundering disgrace remark” Actually what he said was “thundering bollix” when addressing troops in the Curragh camp if memory serves. This forced the resignation of the then President (O’Dalaigh) who was Commander in Chief of the Army that Donegan was addressing. Now Tom Cosgrave you are a bigger fool than I think you are if you accept that this action by a serving Minister did not warrant immediate dismissal. The Taoiseach of the time, your namesake and perhaps a relation, Liam Cosgrave sat on his arse and did nothing. President O’Dalaigh one of the most eminent Senior Counsel and Judges that this state has ever produced was humiliated and forced to resign for doing what was his constitutional duty in relation to a Government Bill which was suspect to say the least. Now Tom Cosgrave if you can say to me that a Minister such as Donegan should have been allowed retain his Cabinet post then I really have nothing more to say to you. I’m delighted that you appreciate the seriousness of Emmett Staggs behaviour even if Andrew doesn’t.
The Dail Debate the other night through up some interesting tit bits about Fine Gael and the Moriarty Tribunal among other things, things I must confess to having forgotten about. I will be returning to these matters later but its vitally important Tom Cosgrave that you let us know what you think of Mr Donegan now. It appears to me that contributors to this site including Sarah herself have no problem berating Bertie Ahern in respect of the Mahon Tribunal but dont appear to have any problem with Fine Gael’s treatment of the Moriarty Tribunal.
Labour by virtue of the Mullingar Accord were it would seem quite happy to give the two fingers to the Moriarty Tribunal by their failure to tackle Fine Gael on the matter. So much for Kathleen Lynch.
By the way Tom the reason I mentioned Donegan and Stagg was your apparent smugness about an ex Fianna Fail TD. Contrast and compare the softly softly approach of Fine Gael / Labour to their people when they step out of line to the approach of the current Government. No surprise that FG / Labour spend so much time in opposition.
The Crewser said,
September 27, 2007 at 2:27 pm
One more nugget I have come across is a Fine Gael Councillor, Anne Devitt was paid 20,000 Euro for solving a road access problem for a constituent. This was revealed at the Mahon Tribunal some time ago. Still an active member of Fine Gael out Swords way. Enda Kenny has no problem with his politicians taking money it would seem. Any comment Sarah, Tom.
Bock the Robber said,
September 27, 2007 at 3:53 pm
This debate isn’t about what Tom Cosgrave thinks.
The Crewser said,
September 27, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Well Rock do you have any views on the points raised. Nice attempt to circle around them though.
Bock the Robber said,
September 27, 2007 at 4:05 pm
It’s inappropriate for a Minister of any party to receive such donations. This behaviour would always be a resigning matter, in order to protect the integrity of the office.
If Bertie Ahern was in a poor financial state, and if he needed to accept money, the appropriate and honourable course of action would have been to resign from office first.
He chose instead to have both the office and the money.
Bock the Robber said,
September 27, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Actually, Crewswer, it’s you who are circling around them by raising unrelated matters and questioning Tom Cosgrave’s motivation. In other words, an old-fashioned dishonest ad hominem argument.
The Crewser said,
September 27, 2007 at 4:19 pm
And Rock I noticed you convniently forgot to mention Anne Devitt and the fact that Enda Kenny has had no apparent problem with her getting 20,000 Euro from a constituent and now I seem to remember back in 1993 one Garrett Fitzgerald (he who bailed out AIB after the ICI debacle) getting a rather substantial loan written off in rather dubious circumstances. Seems FG like to preach integrity Rock but are not so good at putting it into practice.
These are matters which require a bit of ventilation in the current context with FG and Enda Kenny in a holier than thou sort of mood. Hey Rock what say you.
Bock the Robber said,
September 27, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Who’s Rock?
Gordon Davies said,
September 27, 2007 at 4:48 pm
In Ahern’s case we only know about the payments that transited by the bank. Judging by his “savings” there must have been more.
Interesting that FF TDs support for their great leader was somewhat lukewarm… they only only became animated when Biffo appeared. A bunchof rats getting ready to abandon a sinking ship perhaps?
When Ahern went to Paris last week he must have had much to talk about with Sarkozy – who is being investigated by police because of the exceptional discount given by the builder of his previous home in a development in which the planning permission was granted by the Mayor… a certain N. Sarkozy. Ahern would have more in common with Sarko’s predecessor Chirac. The safe in the private washroom of his office in Paris Town Hall was, like the safe in Ahern’s St Lukes office, notorious for being full of banknotes of dubious provenance.
Personally I think Ahern has resisted until now the temptation to spend his ill gotten money – the downfall of so many con artists. We’ll probably only know the true state of his finances some time after his executors have finished dealing with his will.
Gordon
The Crewser said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Gordon I notice you too have for one decided to avail of the by-pass route just like Rock the Robber. I wonder were you called into action to do a spot of diversion. I know you are an ardent left wing supporter, you could possibly justify the matters I have raised in relation to Fine Gael and Enda Kenny. Is your silence on these matters an acceptance that there could be a question mark over Kenny’s integrity. Even over Fine Gaels double standards as witnessed in the Dail the other night. Has the Mullingar accord been scrapped now that the increasingly wooden Gilmore has taken over from Rabbitte. Its not like you Gordon to miss anything.
The Crewser said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:53 pm
And seeing as you are quite good on figures you might be interested to know that the Loan which AIB wrote off for Garrett was the equivalent of 200,000 Euro which makes Tom Gilmartins unsubstantiated allegations against Bertie Ahern small by comparison. That was the same AIB that Garrett bailed out a little while earlier after they ran into a little diffulty. Fine Gael and integrity : not compatible in my view. What do you think Gordon
Bock the Robber said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Crewser:
I don’t know if you noticed the title of this thread. It’s “Ahern and the Tribunal”. Perhaps your dyslexia got in the way of your noticing it.
When I see a post entitled “Fitzgerald and the AIB”, I’ll address that issue.
Bock the Robber said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Back on topic.
Will the Tribunal explore Bertie’s amendment to the 1994 Finance Bill that benefitted Rohan Holdings to the tune of 1.5 million pounds, while not benefitting a single other company? (That would be the same year Bertie got all the cash from his concerned friends). Or the fact that Des “Dig-out” Richardson, who organised the contributions to Bert, was a consultant to Rohan at that time and was paid almost £1M by that company over the period 1996 to 2000?
I’m not saying there was any impropriety. All I’m saying is it raises legitimate doubts. Just like buying a cheap apartment raises comcerns– the difference being that the Israelis and the French actually investigate such things. Meanwhile here in Ireland we take refuge in bluster, changing the subject or trying to shout down the people who raise such issues.
What say you Crewser?
The Crewser said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Another nice try Rock the Robber but when FG / Labour put down that motion everything changed. They set themselves up as some sort of Paragons of virtue. It seems they are not. I wonder would Garretts write off be termed a dig out or a loan and would it be taxable. Interesting.
So Rock the Robber you will have to do a little better than that do by-pass this one. FG and Enda Kenny were blowing during the election campaign about probity and integrity and their merry band of apologists on this site only see wrong when its someone other than FG / Labour
Bock the Robber said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:56 pm
That’s for Fine Gael and Labour to answer. Nothing to do with me.
Get back on topic.
The Crewser said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Still no mention of Anne Devitt a serving disciple of Enda’s from any of the contributors even Rock the Robber
The Crewser said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:58 pm
The topic has broadened considerably today
Bock the Robber said,
September 27, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Crewser:
As it happens, I agree with you about Garrett Fitzgerald and the AIB. In fact, I wrote about it not so long ago on my own site,
Here
However, today we’re talking about Bertie Ahern and the Tribunal.
What I would suggest is this, if you want to talk about Fine Gael’s corruption of which there are many examples. Maybe you could write something and post it on your own site, as I have done. That way, you wouldn’t have to be playing on your own all the time.
Wouldn’t that make sense?
By the way, just on a small matter of courtesy, do you think you could possibly stop calling me Rock the Robber? It’s not a huge matter, but it does make you look ill-mannered, and I’m sure you’re bigger than that.
Gordon Davies said,
September 27, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Crewser,
That you could imagine for one moment that FG is a left wing party is a sad commentary on the state of Irish politics.
As you well know neither FF or FG are political parties in any commonly accepted sense. They are both loose federations of groupuscules that hold widely differing beliefs. The distinction between the 2 is conditioned by an archaic debate concerning a phase in the long struggle to shake off the rule of Westminster. There are elements of the Left in both FF and FG (the “SIPTU wing” of FF, the Fitzgeraldites, perhaps, in FG, our Bartholemew being, by his own admission, a socialist). It is only when the Civil War finally ends with the long over due decomposition of the pro and anti Treaty coalitions that have stifled legitemate political debate in Ireland for the last 80 years that a left/right approach to politics will emerge.
The fault line in Irish politics at present is between those who believe that politicians can accept business men may purchase the goodwill of politicians and those who believe that this is unacceptable. FF, the Greens (those who mistakenly believe that conservation and conservatism are one and the same thing…Gormley, Sargeant, Ryan et al) the PDs, plus of course the seriously compromised “independants”, plus, I would agree, elements of FG, are on the side of the free market in political influence.
Gordon
Sarah said,
September 27, 2007 at 11:25 pm
hey, Garrett Fitzgerald borrowed money and when the GPA flotation went bad he sold his house (to his son, but nevertheless, SOLD HIS HOUSE) to pay it back.
When Charlie owed the AIB money he told them to f*ck off.
Bock the Robber said,
September 27, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Sarah:
Crewser is right about one thing. Garrett’s government took 2% of everybody’s money and handed it to AIB, the richest bank in the country. He did this at an extremely hard time for Irish workers, and yet, the very same year, AIB reported record profits.
I know this because he took my money to bail AIB out of their own mistake and it caused hardship for me. I haven’t been given that money back yet — have you?
On the other hand, Crewser is using this to distract atention from the issue : Bertie and the Tribunal.
Maybe you need a post about the AIB scandal.
Andrew Lawlor said,
September 28, 2007 at 12:25 am
Sarah, just discovered your blog (I know, where have I been?).
Well, what a lively place this is.
That Crewser fella certainly has a lot to say, and isn’t he a big fan of our Bertie. (See, Joe, that wasn’t too difficult. Bertie is just Bertie but Leinster House is full of Ahearns an Ahearnes.)
Crewser, if that is your real name, let me make a point.
Bertie was either Minister for Finance or Leader of the opposition when a wide range of people (a good cross section of the community, you could say) felt an uncontrolable desire to simply give him large amounts of cash.
(Important point here. I say ‘give’ because only a fool or a blinkered political supporter believes that the dig out from the Drumcondra mafia was a loan. It only became a loan when the public found out about it.)
This is unacceptable.
Crewser, are you a democrat? Do you believe that we should expect high standards in high places or should we simply allow TDs, Counncillors and Senators to openly declare these large donations in the disclosure of members’ interests each year and say no more about it.
How the peculiaritys of Bertie’s finances came to light is of little consequence in the debate surrounding his suitability to hold the second highest office in the land. Leaks from the tribunal are another day’s work.
Gilmartin alledges that bertie got 80 grand. The tribunal finds an unexplained and unexplainable 80 grand floating arond in Bertie’s/Celia’s bank accounts. Do you expect that the tribunal would not ask him about it?
If Bertie had given the tribunal a believable account of the ource of the money after initial enquiries they would not have called him for a private interview. If he had been able to give them any semi-plausible account at private interview he would not have been answering questions in public last week.
Now, a couple of personal questions.
Have you always loved Bertie from afar?
Have you ever associated with Fine Gael behind Bertie’s Back?
Have you ever dated the Labour Party?
Have you ever met Gerry Adams?
Stay Sharpe.
Andrew said,
September 28, 2007 at 11:17 am
References to the famous dig-out and the Manchester whip-round should be made with the proviso that these famous events may actually never have happened. It seems fairly clear from newspaper accounts of proceedings at the tribunal and in the Dail that most journalists – and the leaders of the two main opposition parties – don’t believe they did. Surely the media have been hunting for corroboration of Bertie’s accounts of the digout and the whip-round. Is it really credible that nobody who participated in either financial bail-out is willing to come forward, even off the record?
So we have only Bertie’s word – with a fairly ramshackle contribution from Michael Wall – between us and the question: where did all that cash come from, then?
Oonagh said,
September 28, 2007 at 11:49 am
Appopro nothing, Garrett’s son, Mark Fitzgerald of Sherry Fitzgerald – the one he sold the house to – did more to artifically inflate property prices in this country than almost anyone else outside the FF/builders/cronies consortium.
Re Garrett’s settlement with AIB, it was all above board as far as I know. Anyone can get into trouble with the bank and negotiate a settlement.
Bock, if what you say about AIB is true, why was the media not up in arms?
The Crewser said,
September 28, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Andrew Lawlor, you are the Blogging equivalent of Mr Bunbury Oscar Wilde’s ficticious creation in The Importance of Being Earnest. Pull the other one.
I imagine the texts and emails were flying across the Atlantic all evening before Mr Bunbury was dreamed up. It was one in the morning when he discovered this site.
No mention from Sarah about Revenue implications about Garrett’s little deal with the Bank he used taxpayers money to bail out. A Company that was then listed on the Stock Exchange. Interesting.
No mention either from Sarah or Gordon or anyone about Anne Devitt and her little deal. Today I find that Anne was a colleague of one Leo Varadakar on Fingal County Council until his election to the Dail. Leo had it would seem no problem with Anne getting the twenty Grand (neither did Enda it would seem)
but Leo was quite animated and nasty in the Dail the other night. People in glasshouses. The 20,000 Euro is potentially very damaging because its so recent. I’m not really surprised that the apologists for Kenny and Gilmore are tip toeing around this issue. Its not just about tax here its Kenny’s integrity that at issue.It’s so recent and I know Enda would like to say wait until the Tribunal issues its report but he has cut that option off for himself now.
One can only assume that Sarah, Gordon and the others actually condone Anne’s little payment when they did not consider it worth a mention.
They might however be able to find a form of words to make a reference to it at some stage hopefully.
Meanwhile Tom Gilmartin continue to spin out the lies in Dublin Castle, its easy really when you are immune from prosecution. Yesterday he revealed that he gets much of his evidence from anonymous telephone calls. Some star witness.
Bring back Starry O’Brien.
Liam said,
September 28, 2007 at 1:52 pm
well done the crewser : you have brought the blueshirts to their knees yet again. not much wriggle room left for them now
Bock the Robber said,
September 28, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Oonagh: There’s no “if” about it. The AIB story is true, though I can’t tell you why the media weren’t up in arms. I don’t know why.
Garrett Fitzgerald’s government reached into my pocket and the pockets of all the other PAYE workers like me, to rescue big business from its own mistakes. It was money earned during very hard times, and none of us ever got that money back.
However, as I already said, the AIB story is being used to distract attention from the Ahern issue and it really does deserve a post all of its own because it was a scandal.
Even if every single Fine Gael and Labour politician was a dyed-in-the-wool crook, it wouldn’t change the fact that Ahern was caught accepting large bribes.
It’s about time we abandoned old-fashioned bluster and red herrings.
That was accepted back in the Fifties but we’ve moved on from such dishonesty.
Oonagh said,
September 28, 2007 at 6:22 pm
“No mention from Sarah about Revenue implications about Garrett’s little deal with the Bank…”
Crewser, there are no Revenue implications in negotiating a settlement with the bank. If you can get them to write off some of your debt, good for you. Most likely, you’ve still lost out on the deal.
I’m amazed at the lengths you will go to try and distract all and sundry from Bertie’s shenanigans. Give over.
Also amazing how he can refer to Celia Larkin as his ‘life partner’ without a trace of irony. Although her brass neck is a perfect match for his.
Andrew Lawlor said,
September 28, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Crewser : with reference to my aleged status as a bunburyist, I can only put that down to a touch of paranoia on your part. However, as you seem to be somewhat outnumbered here (much like the members of the public who actually believe Bertie’s evidence), I will allow a little latitude.
The main difference between you and I, Crewser, is that I, like Sarah and Paul among others above, am not afraid to put my name to my opinions.
Pedant’s corner again. I discovered the site at 12.25am. Why? Because I keep odd hours. I linked in here from dublinopinion.com and you can check out the real, straight talking me at andrewlawlor.blogspot.com.
Let me outline this in simple English.
Ray Burke took money and it was wrong.
Liam Lawlor took money and it was wrong.
Flynn took money and it was wrong.
Bertie took money and it was wrong.
If Anne Devitt, as you allege, took money, then that, too, was wrong.
A member of the Seanad Eireann told me recently that the first three in the list above were corrupt but Bertie was clean as a whistle.
I’m sorry, Crewser, I just don’t buy it, and neither does a majority of the electorate.
Cowen doesn’t buy it either, but that is not politically convenient just now so he pretends to buy it.
Ned O’ Keefe certainly doesn’t buy it.
It has been over twenty years now since we heard of low standards in high places and where have we come to in the intervening two decades?
The PDs, set up to oppose all that was rotten in Fianna Fáil, have been chewed up and spat out by the soldiers of destiny.
The Greens, the only party to raise the issue of Bertie’s dodgy finances in the election campaign, are now toeing the line and going along to get along, labouring under the illusion that they are weiding some serious power. It recalls the old line, ‘the party that stands for nothing will fall for anything.’
SaraB said,
September 29, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Off topic and all but speaking of Sherry Fitz, they ran an ad recently claiming DTZ Sherry Fitz had been voted one of top ten companies to work for. Ha! I have several friends who would beg to differ. Carry on Crews-meister.
The Crewser said,
September 29, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I note that there is still a deafening silence on the Anne Devitt €20,000.00 from those who were full of chat earlier about Bertie and the Tribunal. They have suddenly gone to ground except the Mr Bunbury, drafted in to create a bit of diversion. He dicovers this site at one in the morning the day after I mention the Anne Devitt money. A likely storey.
Not one of Enda Kenny’s or Eamon Gilmore’s many proponents on this site are prepared to talk about the Devitt money or for that matter Fine Gael’s tratment of the Moriarty tribunal (their financial records or the Telenor document) referred to in the Dail the other night. No, they will not want to discuss these things because the image which Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore would like to portray is that of a squeaky clean whiter than white opposition. But the reality is that its not like that atal.
Every day in Dublin Castle Tom Gilmartin has a new story, picked up from some anonymous journalist or other and the Tribunal is happy to give this man immunity from prosecution. The contributors to this site with a few notable exceptions are happy to side with this gentleman, by now shown to be an adulterated liar. The facts speak for themselves.
Tom Cosgrave said,
October 1, 2007 at 9:21 am
I note that there is still a deafening silence on the Anne Devitt €20,000.00 from those who were full of chat earlier about Bertie and the Tribunal.
Sorry Crewser, I was away from the computer over the weekend.
Anne Devitt should resign, no question about it. That said, I would be very surprised indeed if she has not been sidelined like her colleague and former TD Michael Joe Cosgrave who has also sullied himself with similar matters (and who I can assure you is no relation whatsoever to myself) on similar matters and will not be allowed to run again on a FG ticket.
That said, Anne Devitt and Michael Joe Cosgrave were not Ministers for Finance – and not even ministers! Michael Lowry was kicked out of his ministry and prevented from standing for election his party when he was exposed, which forced him to resign from it. Ned O’Keefe and Ivor Callelly also had to resign their ministries in recent years when their wrong doing was exposed – but never felt forced to resign, presumably because they were not prevented from running again for FF, an interesting contrast to former Minister Lowry, I’m sure you’ll agree. On the other hand, Bertie Ahern was the Minister for Finance, and now he is Taoiseach, yet he is immune, at least so far. Surely the differing treatment is glaringly inconsistent? Surely he has to go?
By the way, surely you can see that if the actions of Anne Devitt and all the others were wrong, surely you can see that the actions of Bertie Ahern were wrong also? It seems that you have gone from suggesting that these matters are not a case of wrongdoing to suggesting that they are wrongdoings in order to get back at the non-FF supporters who have commented here.
They have suddenly gone to ground except the Mr Bunbury, drafted in to create a bit of diversion. He dicovers this site at one in the morning the day after I mention the Anne Devitt money. A likely storey.
I contribute here off my own initiative, Crewser, and do not “draft” people in to fight my battles.
And finally, if you think that Donegan caused a constitutional crises with his remarks, clearly you are either taking a cheap shot an alcoholic who offered his resignation, but was turned down by Cosgrave (a mistake in my opinion). And to be honest, I can’t see how you would not be aware of this, but instead chose to twist the facts in order to provide you with ammunition for this little argument, the facts being that it was not a matter of his being “allowed” to retain his post, but more a matter of his being forced to do so.
Bea said,
October 1, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Well put Tom.
The Crewser said,
October 1, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Big brave Tom is the first of the FG apologists to stick his head over the parapet. I notice you stayed well away from Paddy Donegan. A bit ashamed of that I should imagine. The problem with you and the others Tom is that you can only see wrong if it is somehow associated with Fianna Fail. Presumably you can justify Enda Kenny not taking any action against Devitt. So much for the hosesty and integrity he is preaching about every other day. But we have got used to that from FG / Labour going back the years, that is why the Irish people have left them in opposition so long. Its not you Tom Cosgrave who should be hinting that Devitt should resign or be kicked out of FG its Kenny, Gilmore and the Mullingar accord crew. No mention either in your piece about Tom Gilmartin and his daily embellished claims (the figures premumably filled in by anonymous journalists who have been in touch with the Tribunal rat to check the detail. By omitting to comment on this I am assuming that that type of evidence is satisfactory and sustainable. Well Tom Cosgrave I cann tell you now that its neither sustainable nor acceptable. But then there is a much higher standard of accountability required from Fianna Fail people than there would be from the likes of Tom Gilmartin, Enda Kenny, Eamon Gilmore or for that matter Anne Devitt.
The Crewser said,
October 1, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Belatedly I noticed Tom Cosgrave’s reference to Donegan and I will comment thus. He was Minister for Defence, alcoholic or not, under the Cosgrave Government. It is obvious that Liam Cosgrave has a low opinion of the institutions of state at the time. Things have not changed much to judge by FG’s refusal to condemn Tom Gilmartin for bringing the Tribunal into disrepute with his false allegations.But then they appear to have no trouble accepting that Geraldine Kennedy had a right to shred documents which would help uncover the Tribunal rat. They were good at doing the odd bit of shredding themselves where Tribunals were concerned. (ie their own financial records and the Telenor document) I suppose you would support that type of activity also, Tom.
Godiva said,
October 1, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Crewser,
You are so full of shit I have to assume you’re a FF member. This is why the majority of women don’t get involved in politics. They can’t be bothered with the time-wasting involved listening to planks like you huffing and puffing instead of getting to the crux of the matter. Do you or do you not condone Bertie Ahern’s behaviour?
He should fall on his sword, end of story.
I’m less than impressed with Enda Kenny as well. He should have gone for Ahern gangbusters BEFORE the election. He needs to show some vision/leadership, not just respond in whatever way he believes the electorate will endorse.
Tom Cosgrave said,
October 1, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Big brave Tom is the first of the FG apologists to stick his head over the parapet.
One thing you should not do Crewser, is consider me an apologist for Fine Gael.
The problem with you and the others Tom is that you can only see wrong if it is somehow associated with Fianna Fail.
This is not the case either. I have just slammed Devitt and brought up Michael Joe Cosgrave off my own bat and without prompting. Not to mention Michael Lowry or the seedy Esat/Telenor business.
Presumably you can justify Enda Kenny not taking any action against Devitt.
Actually, I can’t. There is no justification for it – he should make her resign her seat.
No mention either in your piece about Tom Gilmartin and his daily embellished claims (the figures premumably filled in by anonymous journalists who have been in touch with the Tribunal rat to check the detail.
And you know that his claims are embellished and journalists are in touch with whoever the leaker is, do you?
Gilmartin is making statements and they are investigated. When claims about Ahern were investigated, strange things appeared in his financial affairs.
Crewser, given your pointing out of how wrong various non-FF politicans are, I take you now hold the misdeeds of FF politicians to also be worthy of sanction? What do you make of my comparison of Michael Lowry and Ivor Callely and Ned O’Keefe? Also, please answer the questions I put to you previously – surely you can see that if the actions of Anne Devitt and all the others were wrong, you can see that the actions of Bertie Ahern were wrong also? It seems that you have gone from suggesting that these matters are not a case of wrongdoing to suggesting that they are wrongdoings in order to get back at the non-FF supporters who have commented here.
You claim I ignore your comments, but the fact is that you ignore mine.
Belatedly I noticed Tom Cosgrave’s reference to Donegan and I will comment thus. He was Minister for Defence, alcoholic or not, under the Cosgrave Government. It is obvious that Liam Cosgrave has a low opinion of the institutions of state at the time.
I suppose you’ve never heard of the alcoholic Minister for Justice Micheál Ó Móráin serving under Jack Lynch’s FF government at the time of the Arms Crisis – a far more serious offence – and a considerably more serious positon than the Defence portfolio at the time. I guess Jack Lynch must have had a low opinion of the institutions of the State at that particular time.
But then they appear to have no trouble accepting that Geraldine Kennedy had a right to shred documents which would help uncover the Tribunal rat.
I don’t think it’s a question of rights – it’s a question of the credibility of the Irish Times and their ability to break news stories that are in the public interest – and what money Bertie got while Minister for Finance is most definitely in the public interest, whether you think it is or not.
They were good at doing the odd bit of shredding themselves where Tribunals were concerned. (ie their own financial records and the Telenor document) I suppose you would support that type of activity also, Tom.
No, I don’t support it. I condemn it, and referred to it as seedy above. Accordingly, I won’t start defending it! Sarah is the real Fine Gaeler and an expert on this, I believe – ask her
The Crewser said,
October 2, 2007 at 7:17 am
Tom if you are not an apologist for Fine Gael, then you are doing a fair impression of one. You have dodged nicely around the compulsive lying of Tom Gilmartin (the only single reason why Bertie Ahern had to go to the Tribunal in the first place) There is still a noted absence of the others who would be happy to claim that they were fellow travellers of Kenny and Gilmore. Tom you have not dealt with Tom Gilmartin’s lying in your piece atal or the issue of the Tribunal mole and what affect the presence of this mole has had on events to date.Enda Kenny is constantly claiming that Fine Gael is the party of probity and honesty well I think enough has surfaced here in recent days to show that this is not the case. Irish people do not like those wh are whiter than white and they always give the thumbs down to hypocrites when election time comes around. We see plenty about FF misdeeds on this site, I do not need to mention any especially as they are not the party with the holier than thou attitude. And by the way I would love Sarah or any of the others to respond but since the emergence of the Anne Devitt 20 Grand they have gone all bashful.
The Crewser said,
October 2, 2007 at 7:31 am
And a word for you Godiva as well. There are plenty of women who voted for Bertie Ahern on May 24th last despite everything that has been revealed to date having been revealed by Geraldine Kennedy in The Irish Times with a little assistance from one of the Mahon Tribunal Lawyers who is still in there working away happily and one would assume still able to brief Geraldine Kennedy on future developments. It you Godiva have not enough wit to see that there might be something wrong with that then you should stay away from politics and public life. Bertie Ahern would never have had to darken the door of the Mahon Tribunal were it not for the activities of the failed property developer and compulsive liar, Tom Gilmartin. It is you Godiva who is poorly informed on what has been going on. Bertie Ahern has done noting wrong that would warrant his resignation. As for falling on his sword, that honour should be left to Tom Gilmartin.
Tom Cosgrave said,
October 2, 2007 at 9:59 am
The fact you dodge all of the questions I raised for you Crewser shows how seriously you ought to be taken – not remotely.
Liam said,
October 2, 2007 at 10:15 am
you still haven’t answered any of Tom’s questions, Crewser.
Oonagh said,
October 2, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Yes Crewser, we’re waiting….
The Crewser said,
October 2, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I have not noticed any questions that required answering from Tom C. He has been a bit busy answering mine and there are still some outstanding ones such as whether Tom Gilmartin is a fit and trustworthy witness at the Mahon Tribunal. I can assure Tom C that Jack Lynch had a very high opinion of the Institutions of State, enough to sack several Cabinet Ministers at the time of the Arms Trial. And I am firmly of the view that Donegan’s insult to President O’Dalaigh warranted immediate dismissal.But there were others around Cosgrave who were decidely dodgy also, such as Conor Cruise O’Brien(friend of the Northern Orangemen) and Paddy Cooney (no action on the Dublin bombings) There have been suggestiions recently that that Government were infiltrated by the Brittish secret service. It would be no surprise.
I have my doubts that Tom C may be another Mr Bunbury, (along with Andrew Lawlor) he appeared out of thin air at a very opportune time, but I will reserve judgement on that until later.
Niall said,
October 2, 2007 at 2:13 pm
This entry was designed to answer the question: What is a troll?
Liam said,
October 2, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Jeez, what is it with FFs and their difficulties with answering direct questions?
To help you, Crewser, here’s one of Tom’s questions again –
“Also, please answer the questions I put to you previously – surely you can see that if the actions of Anne Devitt and all the others were wrong, you can see that the actions of Bertie Ahern were wrong also?”
Tom Cosgrave said,
October 2, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Crewser you have stated that my questions do not need answering, therefore I think it is safe to conclude you agree with me on the various points I made to you.
The only other reasoning I can arrive at is that The Crewser has been bested in this argument.
Which is it Cruiser?
The Crewser said,
October 2, 2007 at 2:40 pm
You can forget that assumption Tom C if you have any questions they will be fielded and dealt with.
Tom Cosgrave said,
October 2, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Well, I made two assumptions Crewser, not one as you suggest, so I’ll leave it to you to tell me which one is accurate!
I did actually field questions to you previously Crewser. But I’ll try again so…
On this thread on 10.01.07 at 9:21 am I asked you –
Ned O’Keefe and Ivor Callelly also had to resign their ministries in recent years when their wrong doing was exposed – but never felt forced to resign, presumably because they were not prevented from running again for FF, an interesting contrast to former Minister Lowry, I’m sure you’ll agree. On the other hand, Bertie Ahern was the Minister for Finance, and now he is Taoiseach, yet he is immune, at least so far. Surely the differing treatment is glaringly inconsistent? Surely he has to go?
By the way, surely you can see that if the actions of Anne Devitt and all the others were wrong, surely you can see that the actions of Bertie Ahern were wrong also? It seems that you have gone from suggesting that these matters are not a case of wrongdoing to suggesting that they are wrongdoings in order to get back at the non-FF supporters who have commented here.
Again on this thread on 10.01.07 at 9:49 pm, I put it to you that you had not answered, and asked again.
Crewser, given your pointing out of how wrong various non-FF politicans are, I take you now hold the misdeeds of FF politicians to also be worthy of sanction? What do you make of my comparison of Michael Lowry and Ivor Callely and Ned O’Keefe? Also, please answer the questions I put to you previously – surely you can see that if the actions of Anne Devitt and all the others were wrong, you can see that the actions of Bertie Ahern were wrong also?
I await your detailed replies…
The Crewser said,
October 2, 2007 at 4:48 pm
And Tom Cosgrave I have been trying to extract from you your view on whether or not Tom Gilmartin is a worthy and reliable witness at the Mahon Tribunal given his admission that he is being given information by “anonymous sources” which he is using to embellish somewhat general claims he has made earlier in relation not just to Bertie Ahern but to lots of other people also. Additionally I have been trying to get you to deal with the issue of the Tribunal mole and his relationship with Geraldine Kennedy and the media and obviously Tom Gilmartin. You seem to have been a bit reluctant to make any comment despite my many attempts to provke you into one. Now that I know what you require to be answered you can rest assured that it will be before 3 30 pm to-morrow.
Godiva said,
October 2, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Yada yada Crewser. [Yawn..........]
Answer the questions or get off the soap box.
Andrew Lawlor said,
October 2, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Ctrewser,
‘I have my doubts that Tom C may be another Mr Bunbury, (along with Andrew Lawlor) he appeared out of thin air at a very opportune time, but I will reserve judgement on that until later.’
This blogger is a bunburyist for no man or woman. (No offence Sarah.) In typical Fianna Fáil fashion you, Crewser can turn any facts to suit your argument. I have explained to you where I came from (andrewlawlor.blogspot.com), check it out when you draw breath and you will see that I have been bogging there on and off for most of 2007.
Lest you think that my recent absence from this debate is as sinister as my appearence I will explain. The debate here is done and all that is left is a futile attempt to get a (recent) dyed in the wool Fianna Fáiler to accept facts. Not an easy task as most of hose of my aquaintance could argue that black is white all day long and never bat an eyelid.
The Crewser said,
October 3, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I note that there is no response from Tom Cosgrave to indicate when or whether he would deal with the questions I posed for him. He was engaged in a bit of bullying yesterday (Crewser does not respond well to bullying) in relation to his questions which he said were unanswered. Well I have the answers he requires now, but before they appear, Tom Cosgrave must be big enough and brave enough to indicate when exactly he intends to answer the questions I have been posing for him. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Tom Cosgrave said,
October 3, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I was waiting for you to go first, Crewser, as you said you’d be ready at 3.30 today.
I have an answer ready and waiting for you by return.
Liam said,
October 3, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Aw, Crewser
We’ve been waiting all day to your 3.30pm deadline and this is the best you can come up with, you big tease! What a damp squib, much like Bertie’s magical mathematical formula! come on, Crewser, your fans deserve better than this!
The Crewser said,
October 3, 2007 at 2:31 pm
And a note for Mr Bunbury, sorry to disappoint you but your place as defender of the Opposition has already been taken up by Tom Cosgrave. Two seasoned campaigners by all accounts. By heck the “bush telegraph is still functioning pretty smoothly” Interesting how you both discovered or stumbled across the site at this particular point in time.
The Crewser said,
October 3, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Answers to Tom C’s questions will be viewable just after 6 30. A living has to be made.
Tom Cosgrave said,
October 3, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Fair enough, Crewser. I’ll be waiting to make my response shortly after that.
The Crewser said,
October 3, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I am somewhat confused by Tom C’s wording in his questions.He talks about Ivor and Ned not resigning. Resigning from what : the parliamentary party or the Dail.They resigned their positions as Junior Ministers. In any event thats for later. First Anne Devitt, she is a County Councillor. I am now going to let you see how my friends Anthony and Gavin over at Public Inquiry covered her admission that she got money from a constituent.
FG Councillor got €20,000 for helping with land problem
Published by Gavin April 4th, 2006 in Fine Gael, Planning Tribunal
What troubles me is that they know there is a potential conflict of interest, they just don’t seem to want to admit it.
A Fine Gael county councillor was paid €20,000 for her help in solving a road access problem for a landowner in north County Dublin, the tribunal has heard.
Cllr Anne Devitt received the fee in 2002 for negotiating access to the land across property owned by the Eastern Health Board. At the time, she was a member of the EHB, the tribunal heard.
Details of the payment to Ms Devitt emerged yesterday during evidence given by businessman Joe Moran, whose company Rayband Ltd owned the land at Lissenhall near Swords. In 1993, Ms Devitt signed a motion while on Dublin County Council to rezone Rayband’s land for industry.
Paul Cullen of the Irish Times continues:
Yesterday, the inquiry heard that Mr Moran sought to gain access to the road through the EHB land because his property was landlocked. The company paid Ms Devitt the money in June 2002, after it agreed access through the EHB land in return for building ambulance and day-patient facilities.
Mr Moran said Ms Devitt had provided professional advice and legal services. She had portrayed herself as someone who could solve the problem. She had a reputation for solving problems.
Judge Gerald Keys said Ms Devitt was a politician and there was a potential conflict of interest.
Mr Moran replied that Ms Devitt didn’t do anything wrong.
Judge Keys: “Did it not cross your mind there was something questionable about being prepared to pay a substantial sum of money to a politician who was a member of the council, who would be close to the planning department, who was already instrumental in voting on zoning motions and also a member of the health board, which could come to your assistance?” Mr Moran: “No.”
Judge Keys: “Did it not dawn on you there could be a serious conflict of interest and that the public perception could be that what you were trying to do was to buy her?” Mr Moran: “Absolutely not.” Everything was above board and there were no under the counter payments.
He agreed that Ms Devitt, who is due to give evidence to the inquiry tomorrow, never provided him with written advice.
1. Response to FG Councillor got €20,000 for helping with land problem
Shocked!
Jul 19th, 2006 at 1:29 am
I’m shocked. Such a preachy party, not least about corruption, and here they are accepting bribes. I’d say it’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Should she resign from or be expelled from Fine Gael for this admission. Its a bit complicated as a well respected Councillor in Cork told me last night. If she was a Civil Engineer by profession could she be deprived from earing a living doing what she was qualified to do. I’m not sure what here profession is and have not been able to get the full transcript of that day at the Tribunal. I was told by my friend on Cork County Council (FG) that Enda Kenny could not fire her in the run up to the election. She could it seems have caused him to lose a seat.
That’s hardly a defence but without knowing the detail of the case I must give this lady the benefit of the doubt. She may have excluded herself when particular meetings took place. How it all tallies with Enda Kenny’s zero tolerance policy, I dont know. It’s surprising he did not act but I honestly cannot say that this lady is guilty of anything. I will deal with Ivor, Ned and Michael in a few minutes time.
The Crewser said,
October 3, 2007 at 5:53 pm
All political parties have their own rules but generally any wrongdoing by a Minister (Senior or Junior involves dismissal from the job) There have been exceptions to this rule, I have highlighted them before and been berated for so doing.In the case of Ivor and Ned they were found to have done certain things while in office which warranted resignation. Ivor had his house painted by a builder and Ned had to resign over his involvement in a pigmeal processing firm AFAIK.These offences were considered to be relatively small scale and warranted nothing more than loss of Junior Ministerial office. In the case of Michael Lowry, a key figure in FG and former chair of the Parliamentary Party in addition to being a Senior Minister there was little option open to FG but to expel him. There was a Tribunal finding against him. As a general rule if there is a Tribunal or Court ruling against you, you are excluded from the party in addition to losing your job as a Minister. Michael could never be re-admitted to FG because of the ongoing Court cases which are still in process relating to Mobile Telephone licences etc. There are a lot of aggrieved people around in this martetplace who simply will not let this go. So Michael was unique among all of the people mentioned. He had a Tribunal finding against him. Ivor,Ned or Anne did not. Neither does Bertie who will be covered in a few minutes.
Tom Cosgrave said,
October 3, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Crewser, I am not certain what the point of the pasting of the article relating to Anne Devitt is – I already said that she should resign. I already said on 10.01.07 at 9:49 pm that there was no justification for Enda Kenny not having her expelled. She should be expelled.
You did fail to answer the question I asked of you though, the question you said you would answer –
By the way, surely you can see that if the actions of Anne Devitt and all the others were wrong, surely you can see that the actions of Bertie Ahern were wrong also? It seems that you have gone from suggesting that these matters are not a case of wrongdoing to suggesting that they are wrongdoings in order to get back at the non-FF supporters who have commented here.
- instead, you’ve done a u-turn and are now giving her “the benefit of the doubt”! Pathetic stuff. I’ve caught you out with my stating she should go – my saying that has prevented you from using Anne Devitt’s misdeed against me.
I am somewhat confused by Tom C’s wording in his questions.He talks about Ivor and Ned not resigning. Resigning from what : the parliamentary party or the Dail.
The Parliamentary Party – I put it to you that Ned O’Keefe and Ivor Callely did not resign from Fianna Fáil because they were not going to be prevented from running as Fianna Fáil candidates. Michael Lowry was not expelled – he resigned because he was going to be prevented from running as a Fine Gael candidate.
Tom Cosgrave said,
October 3, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Previously Crewser, you stated that I was engaged in a bit of bullying. This is not the case – I was merely responding to your questions. There is no question of bullying. Stop trying to divert attention away from the questions that have been put to you. I am assuming here that you are referring to my telling you yesterday that I had made two assumptions about you and not one as you had suggested – that you either agreed with me, or that you had been bested in this argument. You seem to have studiously ignored the point and have not given an answer for that either. Most interesting.
Now, on to the questions asked of me in relation to Gilmartin, the Irish Times and the Tribunal.
You seem to have been a bit reluctant to make any comment
Any comment? But on 10.01.07 at 9:49 pm I posted on Gilmartin, the Irish Times and the Tribunal. I asked of you in relation to Gilmartin whether you knew -
that his claims are embellished and journalists are in touch with whoever the leaker is, do you?
I then said, in that same comment, that -
Tom Gilmartin is making statements. Those statements are being investigated. When claims made about Ahern were investigated, strange things appeared in his financial affairs.
I’ll add to that now and say that if statements made by Gilmartin are not true, then that will be stated by the Tribunal in due course. Ahern has had investigations made of him, based on Gilmartins statements, which have led to the relevations that have occurred in the past year. He has not credibly accounted for any of the monies that are in question.
On Tribunal leaks to the Irish Times and the shredding of the documents that were leaked, I said that -
I don’t think it’s a question of rights – it’s a question of the credibility of the Irish Times and their ability to break news stories that are in the public interest – and what money Bertie got while Minister for Finance is most definitely in the public interest, whether you think it is or not.
By the way – I am not a Bunbury-type – I’ve had a weblog since 1999 and have been on radio and in print in relation to same. My name is the name I post under here. I provide a link to my website when I post. I notice you do neither. Who are you Crewser? For what it’s worth, I suspect you to be a either a Fianna Fáil deputy or an advisor to one.
Finally, you stated that Interesting how you both discovered or stumbled across the site at this particular point in time.. What point in time is this Crewser? This is a direct question – you have implied that there is some sort of conspiracy between myself and another poster, and there a direct answer is required from you.
The Crewser said,
October 3, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Bertie Ahen had to appear before the Mahon Tribunal because of allegations made by Tom Gilmartin a former property Developer. Tom Gilmartin was in competition with several other Developers in this country when a number of major shopping centres were mooted in the Dublin area but also in other areas outside the Capital. O’Callaghan was very successful in the property development area, Gilmartin was not. Gilmartin emigrated to the UK where he did some work but nothing on the scale of O’Callaghans jobs.
Gilmartin had a somewhat chequered history in this country before he tried his hand at property development.He was a small farmer in the West of Ireland. Allegations against Bertie Ahern had been made by a man known as “Starry” O’Brien some years ago. Bertie Ahern took this man to Court and the allegations proved groundless.
Gilmartin is a very bitter man with a grudge against people who were in Government when his Development aspirations evaporated. He has admitted under cross-examination at the Mahon Tribunal that much of his evidence is got from anonymous contacts. Telephone contacts ,one assumes these are journalists, Tribunal Lawyers or others intent on Bringing Bertie Ahern down.
There is one Tribunal Lawyer who has leaked confidential information from the Tribunal to the media. This person still operates within the Mahon Tribunal and presumably as the Mahon Tribunal do not know who he is (officially anyway) he has full access to all documentaion in the Tribunal’s possession.
The question Tom C is asking is should Bertie resign his position as a result of his being forced to appear the Mahon Tribunal. The answer is an emphatic NO.
Mr Ahern fell on hard times as a result of his marriage break up in the mid nineties and was assisted by friends, financially. This to my way of thinking was perfectly in order, I would have helped him myself if I had known at the time.
There has not been a single shred of evidence presented to the Mahon Tribunal which would indicated that Bertie Ahern ever received a bribe or did anything illegal which would warrant his resignation. If such material were to emerge I would be the first to call for him to resign. It is certainly no offence to fail to remember what you did in your banking or investing history 12 to 14 years ago. Very few people could. I certainly could not.
Bertie Ahern has the confidence of his party, his Cabinet, the Dail and most importantly the Irish People. He has worked tielessly for the Irish people, North and South and he will continue to do so. Under no circumstances should Bertie Ahern resign as Taoiseach of this country as a result of false allegations by Tom Gilmartin.
The Crewser said,
October 3, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Tom C are you satisfied that Tom Gilmartin has admitted under cross examination that parts of his evidence is coming from anonymous contacts and are you satisfied with the presence of a mole within the Mahon Tribunal, leaking confidential information to all and sundry. They are not difficult questions Tom C deal with them.
The Crewser said,
October 4, 2007 at 1:37 pm
There is a basic principle of Law in this country relating to hearsay evidence. It is not admissable and where someone is told something by someone else they must divulge that persons name so that the person can be questioned about what they know or allege. That is not happening at the Mahon Tribunal and the idea that confidential information can be passed out to certain individuals by people within the Tribunal is most definitely not acceptable. How somebody can condone this type of thing is beyond me and I believe that anybody who does should be challenged strongly at every possible opportunity to ascertain, precisely where they are coming from.
Sarah said,
October 4, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Crewser, that’s a fair point. But doesn’t change the fact that Ahern has cash coming into this account that matches the allegations and he can’t come up with a credible and consistent story about its source. That doesn’t mean he’s guilty, but it does mean he has to be questioned. It’s no more or less than anyone else has had to put up with. Actually in most cases its less. Denis O’Brien has to put up with the same thing and there’s no evidence of any money going anywhere, only pub gossip. In Ahern’s case there IS money.
Tom Cosgrave said,
October 4, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Crewser,
I have not had a chance to respond today due to pressure of work.
But in brief –
Tom C are you satisfied that Tom Gilmartin has admitted under cross examination that parts of his evidence is coming from anonymous contacts
Yes, I am satisfied that this is the case. It changes nothing. There are still money of a dubious origin in Aherns account and he has not explained this sufficiently or credibly. While you do not believe this, that is the fact of the matter.
and are you satisfied with the presence of a mole within the Mahon Tribunal, leaking confidential information to all and sundry.
I am not satisfied there is a mole. An individual leaked documents yes, because that individual felt it to be in the public interest. That individual is not leaking it to all and sundry however.
Finally, Crewser, I note you have not responded to my refutation of your accusation of my bullying you. Also, you have not responded to my refutation of my “discovering this site at a particular point in time”.
Crocodile said,
October 4, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I’m intrigued by Crewser’s assertion that Bertie has ‘worked tielessly’ for the Irish people. Every time I see him he’s wearing a tie, usually with a pink stripe – subliminal message: socialist streak? – and I always picture him in full Louis Copeland rigout. Certainly his notorious attempts at ’smart casual’ have occasioned derision in the past.