Messages

How about a caption for that photo?
Anyone got ideas?
I'll kick off with, "Primus Inter Pares," first amongst equals.
"My Latin's a bit rusty at this stage, so I'm hoping I got that one right.)

"Nothing he says is worth listening too."
The fact that Blatter says something doesn't make it false.
A statement like that has to be judged on its own merits, regardless of who made it.
Going by stew's account in the starter post here, Blatter is talking of those making dangerous challenges during a game to be charged with a criminal offence.
Being charged with a criminal offense is not the same as being found guilty.
At least the accused would have the right to maintain innocence and the prosecution would have to make a sustainable case before the alleged wrongdoer would be convicted.

Re: Error 0x800CCC19
I think the advice you got that this might be caused by problems on your mail server, large file attachments or similar.
If you want to suss out what's on your mail server, this might help.
I have an original, free copy of Popcorn, a simple email client.
It doesn't handle html fies or open attachments so it's mighty useful for checking my own mail and deleting anything I don't want to risk downloading off the server.
(It can't trigger viruses as it can't open them but it can delete an email, including attachments.)
If you or anyone else wants a copy I'll upload it to a site and post the URL here.

I'd go visit this site if I was you.

Code Select Expand

www.heartpoint.com/Choltreatment.html
You'll get any amount of information there.

"No Lar it IS evidence. How a court or tribunal weighs that evidence is another matter but it is evidence - and much of it is from Bertie's own mouth."

Leo, I think any disparity between our respective opinions on this one is a matter of interpretation of the word, "evidence." I have no doubt whatsoever about your sincerity, but the same applies equally to another poster, rosnarun. I'd go further and say I formed that opinion of ros a long time ago.
Both us of us seem to engage in Mayo football-related threads a lot and, IMO, ros is one of the more balanced and analytical posters on those threads.
I feel you are correct when you write, "Wait on Mahon for a planning & corruption decision" but that and the second part of your sentence are mutually contradictory.
Again, that's my personal opinion and not a legal one..
This module of the tribunal is all about planning and corruption!
At this stage of investigations, who can say that the tribunal researchers do not have further matters they would like to ask Bertie to discuss?
Any move to step in by, say, the DPP or the Revenue Commissioners would forestall the process of investigation.
Zap wrote in a post further up this thread, "I fully support the work of the Tribunal finishing and no criminal proceedings being brought against anyone until it is complete."
I really don't imagine that pre-emptive action by any authority would not see the tribunal being put on indefinite hold until such proceedings are completed.
To quote yourself once again, "How a court or tribunal weighs that evidence is another matter."
Of course it is!
To prove something on the basis of what has emerged from the tribunal hearings, beyond reasonable doubt, is quite another one. Here, any charges would be met by a top-class legal defence team and there could be no certainty of success if such a move was initiated.
Remember that the Revenue Commissioners have begun an inquiry into the circumstances behind Celia Larkin's house purchase.
Yes, I know that the commissioners are not supposed to discuss matters relating to any particular individual or concern in public but that report was widely reported in the media early last week. To date, it has not been denied by any quarter and there is no indication of a libel action from Celia or anyone else.
Therefore, the leak had to come from a reliable and trustworthy source.
It is crucial to keep in mind that any such proceedings do not affect the workings of the tribunal as they do not involve any of the central characters.

Zap, I'm glad you get the main point of what I have been saying all along but you have posed three questions to me that require three separate answers.

Do you believe B Ahern misled the Dail, lied to the Irish people, lied to- misled and purposely delayed the Tribunal.
I do.
Do you agree that without the tribunal finishing that there is enough information in the public domain to demand the resignation of B Ahern now?
I do but I'd qualify that answer.
Are you in the Green Party?
No.
Based on what I've seen, heard and read I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, Bertie comes up short on all the charges (4) that you have laid against him in the first question you have put to me.
I could answer "yes" to your second question but I'd also like to clarify who should be empowered to remove him from office if he doesn't step down voluntarily. Alan Mahon and his colleagues certainly are not!
I've gone through the reasons for this in previous posts.
If you re-read your second question I hope you will agree with me on this point; if any legal or political move is made on foot of what has gone on at the Mahon Tribunal, it will certainly be doomed to failure and will very likely bring the Tribunal's work to an abrupt halt.
I don't get the point of your third question but you may see some connection between what the Greens say and what I have said.  It's been said to me that it serves the hoors right; they are caught between facing reality and holding onto the mercs and perks. I tend to go along with that but no, I am not connected to the Greens in any way.

But if in the course of an investigation of Mr A about, say, corruption, strong evidence emerges that Mr A has been engaged in other nefarious dealings (say, a murder, or being involved in a terrorist plan to blow up the IFSC, or serious tax evasion, or moneylaundering) do we ignore that? FF seem to suggest we do. God help us if we are to be thus governed.

I'd go along with the above, part of the way.
First off all, I'd replace the word, "evidence," with another one, "indications," or "suggestions."
I think we should ignore this "evidence"– the call is not for us to make.
Alan Mahon seems to be sticking strictly to his remit, despite attempts from numerous sources to get in his way and to obstruct his tribunal in its deliberations.
Mahon and his colleagues have been charged with a specific task.
He heads a "Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments."
I'd suggest he is doing an efficient job and that the way in which tribunal researchers have managed to come up with what has been uncovered between tribunal session has come as a nasty shock to many politicians - and to plenty of other individuals as well.
I wouldn't agree that FF seems to suggest anything. There are screams coming from that quarter to have the tribunal shut down, There is no "seems" about those protests!
Well, let them go to hell and go back to their former mantra that we should wait for the Tribunal's deliberations.
I think the rest of us should do the same.

A good starter post, Leo; you have made a case for the many who are uneasy with the revelations that have come to light because of Mahon's tribunal.
However, under our perceptions of common decency and present law, Bertie has a right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
It's also prudent to remember that Judge Mahon and his tribunal are merely investigating matters relating to Bertie's actions and this tribunal is not a court of law- there may be further action from either the office of the DPP or the Revenue authorities but I cannot assume that that will be the case.
No one can.
The tribunal has been on the go for long enough and has cost taxpayers more than enough to forestall its deliberations.

I used to use AVG .( I had the pro version at that.) It slowed the system down very much whenever I did a scan.
One day I suddenly found I couldn't connect to the update site. Problem was probably at my end as my laptop was still able to do so but I couldn't afford to wait about, so I headed to CNET and read the latest review on anti-virus programs.
Avast seemed a good, overall choice so I downloaded it and gave it a run. I'm totally satisfied with it. It runs unobtrusively in the background and updates itself without fuss. It is not a resource hog either.
I was using Spyware Doctor, via Google's Updater package so I decided to switch to PC Tools firewall product from the same company.
The three products above are free, they all run without slowing down system resources and all appear to be doing a satisfactory job for me.

Brilliant, by the way what was that "changing the laws so she can cheat" in reference to?

I imagine that the reference is to a decision by the Democratic Party to withhold voting rights from the delegates selected at the Florida convention and those of another state .(I just can't recall the name right now.) 
I really don't know why this was so or why Florida and the other state decided to break ranks and hold their conventions as early as January, as the party administration has stated that all conventions should be held no earlier than February.
Anyway, neither Obama nor Clinton bothered campaigning in either as both states were warned in advance that the delegates selected would not be granted voting rights at the final convention to select the presidential candidate.
Anyway both state organisations went ahead and held their conventions and Clinton won both fairly comfortably but the result was meaningless.
Now, Clinton's organisation is trying to get the party decree overturned and to have the barred delegates given full voting rights.
Obama's supporters are none to happy at this move and the Party top brass seem to be dragging their feet on the issue.

The only problem is that the Revenue do not issue statements about their dealings with anyone's tax affairs.  There is no way that any Revenue official would inform a journalist that they were going to investigate any taxpayer.

Sorry, Onlooker, at the start I thought you were on a bit of a wind up. I now know you are being dead serious, so that's okay by me.
The first sentence of the above quote is correct but your second assertion I'm afraid is very off the mark. There are plenty of ways to do this very thing and the Revenue Commissioners are not the only ones to adopt this approach.
We have probably the most restrictive libel laws in the western world and journalists have to be very careful in what they choose to report.
If a variety of media come out with a statement like the one we are referring to, you can be certain all of them are very confident of the reliability of the 'leak,' and very importantly, that the action being mentioned is going to happen very soon.
All journalists, especially Pol Corrs guard their particular sources very carefully and if so many come out with such a statement at the same time, it can only mean that the investigation has already begun, so as to forestall the likelihood of a libel suit by the aggrieved party.
Remember the huge bank robbery in Belfast some years back?
Some time later, the Gardai caught up with a man they "wished to help them with their inquiries," in a house in a remote part of Kerry, or possibly West Cork- I don't exactly recall the location now.
Okay?
There was widespread media coverage of this at the time and it was also reported that the house in question was owned by a well-known IRA supporter in Dublin and that he used to rent the house out to holiday makers. Furthermore it was also reported that Revenue proposed to investigate this as he had not reported the extra source of income to the relevant authorities.
Where did the media get this information from?
Informed leaks come from all quarters and at times this device of reporting confidential matters backfires somewhat. Geraldine Kennedy of The Irish Times  had a littler spot of bother some time ago in this regard and so did Brendan Howlin of the Labour Party in relation to information he released in the Dail concerning the McBrearty case in Donegal.
In both cases the Gardai wanted to locate the source of the leaks and threatened prosecution in both instances if the sources were not handed over to them.
Using leaked information can be a risky business for both journalists and politicians alike. I guess but the fact is they frequently use such leaks and choose to run the risk of possible libel action means they are confident of the genuineness of their sources..
HTH.

What is going on??
One thread disappeared without apparent reason and the follow up one is locked after a very short time. Better type fast or I'll be wasting my time again.
Dodo, I can hardly disagree with anything you've said.
Come to think of it, I can hardly agree either!
I'm clueless as to what is upsetting you but maybe you'd fill us in as you seem upset over something.
As to the game itself, at least we earned a hard-won point.
But the game certainly followed an all too predictable pattern with Mayo's midfield being cleaned out and Laois hoofing a stream of high balls down on BJP and Quigley with inevitable results.
In fairness to Padden, he appeared injured throughout the game and even Finn McCool couldn't cope under the circumstances.
However, there were positives and Johnno seems to be slowly getting a young and talented squad together.

The statement in the Indo that the Revenue have said that they are investigatiing Celia Larkin's Loan from Fianna Fail is clearly a nonsense.  The Revenue do not inform newspaper journalists or any one else of what they are doing with regard to any taxpayer.  You can't believe everything you read in the papers, Lar Naparka.

Hold on there, Onlooker, I didn't read it in the Indo.
I got it from BreakingNews.ie and I know it  was widely reported elsewhere. I wouldn't get too excited about anything I'd pick up on the Indo - but they all can't be wrong.
I cannot quote verbatim at this stage but I recall reading that a spokesman for the Revenue had confirmed that they proposed investigating the circumstances under which Ms. Larkin obtained the loan to buy a house for her elderly aunts.
I might be open to challenge here, but I feel that's the gist of what was carried in other media also.
To date, the Revenue Commissioners have not moved to rebut this claim and not a single paper or radio/TV channel has chosen to retract it.
Given the present laws of libel, I'd say no one would have published such a report unless its source could be verified.
So, what's the problem?

Thus if you find a problem in sending contact talk-talk and in receiving contact web-host.

From what passedit said at the start there are problems with both sending and receiving so I'd imagine that the problem lies with Gmail itself.
My brother has had the very same experience just a few weeks back and as himself and his mrs. run a B&B he found himself in serious dudu.
Eircom is his ISP and he used their webmail service also.
He got sweet damn all help from their technical dept. either.
He was advised to use topmail.ie instead and that services works fine, so it has not been a broadband problem.
(He still has problems as he has customers who have him listed in their contacts at his original number. He knows he can get in touch with all of them to advise them of the change of email address but he's reluctant to do that as it might seem like touting for business

Bainistoeir,
This may not be what you are looking for but a look here wouldn't do any harm.
Bear in mind that the chap behind this site has strong views about elaborate websites and strongly advises newcomers to the Web to keep well away from the likes.
You'll be told here that over 60% of business site start ups last less than 3 years and wind up costing the unfortunate owners thousands upon thousands in the process.
www.eamonnhenry.com