Messages

[Bertie set the terms of reference for these Tribunals. They will achieve very little as a result.]

Bertie set the terms of reference for these Tribunals. They will achieve very little as a result.

Fair enough. I was merely taking you up on your quote above which is wholly wrong.

Actually it is correct to say that Bertie set the TOR. It is also fair comment to say that as Bertie set them up, and was likely to be investigated, they would achieve very little. Technically there is nothing wrong with that at all.

But that would be semantics and entirely missing the point.

Oh Dear. Right well I'll depart on that note.

[Bertie set the terms of reference for these Tribunals. They will achieve very little as a result.]

Bertie set the terms of reference for these Tribunals. They will achieve very little as a result.

Fair enough. I was merely taking you up on your quote above which is wholly wrong.

 

No he could not! You have a fundamental understanding of what a tribunal can do. All it can do is deliver  report which is non-binding on anyone.

Do you have a fundamental understanding of what our legislature can do? If they wanted to give it teeth they could have passed legislation.

I do indeed. But your original point was that because Ahern drew up the terms of reference, the tribunals will achieve very little. My point was that they have no teeth regardless due to the fact that tribunals can only put their non-binding findings out into the public domain.

If you had argued that Ahern should have implemented legislation giving tribunals more powers I would have agreed. But you didn't.

No he could not! You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tribunal can do. All it can do is deliver  report which is non-binding on anyone.

[Tribunals have pretty much no teeth]

The big issue here is corporate donations to a political party during its term of office in government by a company (but really O'Brien) to which a licence for a state contract was awarded and the basis on which such award was made has been deemed to be resulting from corruption.

The timeline in the IT today shows alot of shifting of money around by FG party men - its reminiscent of Charlie:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0323/1224292847492.html

We'll have the Mahon report in a few months. FF I'd imagine will be somewhat muted when thats released which leaves us with SF to take the high ground. Dear God.

Pretty damning article. Tax evasion and non-declarations should be easy enough to pin on him. Corruption will be more difficult but I really hope they can prove it.

I believe he has already been informed that no proceedings will arise in respect of tax irregularities. That may be incorrect but I believe it to be the case. As for the corruption side of things, I think any prosecution will be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Anyway, we all knew what the outcome of this Tribunal would be and one has to wonder why a man such as Lowry is repeatedly elected to the Dail. And indeed other corrupt politicians before him.

As I said though, it appears that senior FG advisors and supporters were aware of donations to the party and the way the $50k donation was handled appeared evasive at best. Bruton supposedly ordered its return but that was much later and seems to be an attempt to minimise the impact on the party from the fallout of Lowry's dealings.

Bertie set the terms of reference for these Tribunals. They will achieve very little as a result.

Whatever about senior FG figures knowing something, at least they booted him out of the party a long time ago. Ahern, Pee Flynn and co were never removed.

Agree re FF not removing their sinners. Its a disgrace. Don't get what you mean re Terms of Reference though. They set out what the Tribunals can investigate but do not impact on the findings or the powers of the Tribunals. Tribunals have pretty much no teeth regardless, apart from putting the truth out into the public domain. In any case, the terms of reference for Moriarty were quite broad.

Exactly.

But that has nothing to do with the terms of reference of any given tribunal - its down to the Tribunals of Enquiry Legislation.

The big issue here is corporate donations to a political party during its term of office in government by a company (but really O'Brien) to which a licence for a state contract was awarded and the basis on which such award was made has been deemed to be resulting from corruption.

The timeline in the IT today shows alot of shifting of money around by FG party men - its reminiscent of Charlie:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0323/1224292847492.html

We'll have the Mahon report in a few months. FF I'd imagine will be somewhat muted when thats released which leaves us with SF to take the high ground. Dear God.

Pretty damning article. Tax evasion and non-declarations should be easy enough to pin on him. Corruption will be more difficult but I really hope they can prove it.

I believe he has already been informed that no proceedings will arise in respect of tax irregularities. That may be incorrect but I believe it to be the case. As for the corruption side of things, I think any prosecution will be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Anyway, we all knew what the outcome of this Tribunal would be and one has to wonder why a man such as Lowry is repeatedly elected to the Dail. And indeed other corrupt politicians before him.

As I said though, it appears that senior FG advisors and supporters were aware of donations to the party and the way the $50k donation was handled appeared evasive at best. Bruton supposedly ordered its return but that was much later and seems to be an attempt to minimise the impact on the party from the fallout of Lowry's dealings.

Bertie set the terms of reference for these Tribunals. They will achieve very little as a result.

Whatever about senior FG figures knowing something, at least they booted him out of the party a long time ago. Ahern, Pee Flynn and co were never removed.

The details of the event were passed on unsolicited under the instructions of the leader of the day Micheal Noonan to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also found that then Minister Lowery was the only member of the cabinate to bear any cabinate responsibility.

Micheal Lowery was ejected from the party immediately.

The 50K aquired by the pair of rogue members was returned.

Your loyalty is admirable. Every party needs people like you to survive.

The big issue here is corporate donations to a political party during its term of office in government by a company (but really O'Brien) to which a licence for a state contract was awarded and the basis on which such award was made has been deemed to be resulting from corruption.

The timeline in the IT today shows alot of shifting of money around by FG party men - its reminiscent of Charlie:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0323/1224292847492.html

We'll have the Mahon report in a few months. FF I'd imagine will be somewhat muted when thats released which leaves us with SF to take the high ground. Dear God.

Pretty damning article. Tax evasion and non-declarations should be easy enough to pin on him. Corruption will be more difficult but I really hope they can prove it.

I believe he has already been informed that no proceedings will arise in respect of tax irregularities. That may be incorrect but I believe it to be the case. As for the corruption side of things, I think any prosecution will be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Anyway, we all knew what the outcome of this Tribunal would be and one has to wonder why a man such as Lowry is repeatedly elected to the Dail. And indeed other corrupt politicians before him.

As I said though, it appears that senior FG advisors and supporters were aware of donations to the party and the way the $50k donation was handled appeared evasive at best. Bruton supposedly ordered its return but that was much later and seems to be an attempt to minimise the impact on the party from the fallout of Lowry's dealings.

Bertie set the terms of reference for these Tribunals. They will achieve very little as a result.

Whatever about senior FG figures knowing something, at least they booted him out of the party a long time ago. Ahern, Pee Flynn and co were never removed.

Agree re FF not removing their sinners. Its a disgrace. Don't get what you mean re Terms of Reference though. They set out what the Tribunals can investigate but do not impact on the findings or the powers of the Tribunals. Tribunals have pretty much no teeth regardless, apart from putting the truth out into the public domain. In any case, the terms of reference for Moriarty were quite broad.

The big issue here is corporate donations to a political party during its term of office in government by a company (but really O'Brien) to which a licence for a state contract was awarded and the basis on which such award was made has been deemed to be resulting from corruption.

The timeline in the IT today shows alot of shifting of money around by FG party men - its reminiscent of Charlie:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0323/1224292847492.html

We'll have the Mahon report in a few months. FF I'd imagine will be somewhat muted when thats released which leaves us with SF to take the high ground. Dear God.

Pretty damning article. Tax evasion and non-declarations should be easy enough to pin on him. Corruption will be more difficult but I really hope they can prove it.

I believe he has already been informed that no proceedings will arise in respect of tax irregularities. That may be incorrect but I believe it to be the case. As for the corruption side of things, I think any prosecution will be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Anyway, we all knew what the outcome of this Tribunal would be and one has to wonder why a man such as Lowry is repeatedly elected to the Dail. And indeed other corrupt politicians before him.

As I said though, it appears that senior FG advisors and supporters were aware of donations to the party and the way the $50k donation was handled appeared evasive at best. Bruton supposedly ordered its return but that was much later and seems to be an attempt to minimise the impact on the party from the fallout of Lowry's dealings.

The big issue here is corporate donations to a political party during its term of office in government by a company (but really O'Brien) to which a licence for a state contract was awarded and the basis on which such award was made has been deemed to be resulting from corruption.

The timeline in the IT today shows alot of shifting of money around by FG party men - its reminiscent of Charlie:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0323/1224292847492.html

We'll have the Mahon report in a few months. FF I'd imagine will be somewhat muted when thats released which leaves us with SF to take the high ground. Dear God.

Have read that timeline a few times now, I see the money getting to a man called David Austin & Micheal Lowery.

David Austin was a FG fundraiser.

The big issue here is corporate donations to a political party during its term of office in government by a company (but really O'Brien) to which a licence for a state contract was awarded and the basis on which such award was made has been deemed to be resulting from corruption.

The timeline in the IT today shows alot of shifting of money around by FG party men - its reminiscent of Charlie:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0323/1224292847492.html

We'll have the Mahon report in a few months. FF I'd imagine will be somewhat muted when thats released which leaves us with SF to take the high ground. Dear God.

WUM
« Sent to: ONeill on: March 22, 2011, 08:07:24 PM »
< From BennyHarp
« You have not responded to this message. »
     
Here O'Neill, what does WUM mean? Has it to do with men having woman chests, like manboobs, as in 'Woman Uddered Man'?
I'm sorry if this sounds silly. Sorry also for bothering you and don't forget, I still owe you for sending over that cream. My balls have stopped itching for the time being but the wife still won't, well, you know. If there's any more of that stuff left could you please ask SaffronSam nicely again.

Ha!You have a talent O'Neill.

Maybe this speech needs to be linked on another thread but in any event its worth a read:

http://www.financialregulator.ie/press-area/speeches/Pages/Address%20by%20Patrick%20Honohan,%20Governor%20of%20the%20Central%20Bank%20of%20Ireland%20at%20the%20%20ICMBS,%20Geneva.aspx

Sorry muppet I thought you meant let Anglo go like Northern Rock.

I'm not suggesting Lehmans caused the crisis at all - what I'm saying is that once Lehman's happened there is no way Europe would have let us cut Anglo loose as it had the potential to be Europe's lehmans. As you say, we agree on ECB policy. If Anglo could have been liquidated prior to Lehmans then things may have been different but that would have been impossible in the time period from when Anglos problems became apparent to government- hence what I mean by tight timelines.

And by other factors I mean more than burn bondholders. I mean, amongst other factors, they would have had to consider deposits and a run on other banks regarding same. People forget that banks rely on deposits to actually work and lend on a day to day basis. As far as I can see, AIB are fecked in this regard.

Cant believe I got sucked into this aspect of the argument.

You mean that hypothetically Enda would have said 'right let them go to the wall' and anyone that's burned is burned? What other factors would he have had to consider?

Didnt the brits at some stage guarantee deposits of senior and unsecured debt of Northern Rock?? You'll know more about that than me.

Well its intriguing to imagine circumstances if that could have been done before Lehman's collapsed. I think the timelines might have been too tight to manage it however.