Pat Rabbitte to resign today?

When I used the expression "ok with" I was actually quoting another poster.

To clarify my own view

  • Beverly Flynn has been found by the Supreme Court to have facilitated and encouraged tax evasion.
  • She insists, however, there was nothing wrong with what she did.
  • Despite the above two facts, Bertie Ahern would welcome her back into Fianna Fáil and considers she would make a good minister.
In light of the foregoing, anyone who now votes for Fianna Fáil either approves of tax evasion or at a minimum is prepared to tolerate it in a member of the government they support. Truly, we do get the governments we deserve.
 

As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, PR chose to rule out a coalition with FF on the basis that he could not work with them. He made a choice to offer an alternative with FG, that was rejected by the electorate and he has now resigned. While I agree you cannot implement policy if you are not in power he obviously felt he could not work with FF. FF, on the other hand, have had no difficulty working with all different ideologies, which I suppose is easy to do especially when you have no ideology of your own.
 
ubiquitous said:
There is a big difference between "being ok with" (ie supporting or agreeing with) crimes and tolerating (or even voting for) someone who has either committed or facilitated such crimes in the past.
Click to expand...

I'd say you'd be hard pressed to fit a credit card through the differences you've just described.
 
room305 said:
I'd say you'd be hard pressed to fit a credit card through the differences you've just described.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. It still remains my opinion that it is possible to vote for someone without necessarily agreeing with everything they stand for and everything they have done in the past.
 
gonk said:
In light of the foregoing, anyone who now votes for Fianna Fáil either approves of tax evasion or at a minimum is prepared to tolerate it in a member of the government they support.
Click to expand...

Would you agree then that everyone who supports the Mahon Tribunal and its work "either approves of tax evasion or at a minimum is prepared to tolerate it in a member of the" tribunal?

[broken link removed]
 
ubiquitous said:
Would you agree then that everyone who supports the Mahon Tribunal and its work "either approves of tax evasion or at a minimum is prepared to tolerate it in a member of the" tribunal?

[broken link removed]
Click to expand...

I was reading that article you quote above then spotted this one further down in the Ireland section of the same issue, ironic really...

[broken link removed]
 
There you go.

Builder says he paid TD for new address

Paul Cullen
[broken link removed]
Mr Seamus Ross: claimed he paid Mr Liam Lawlor over #40,000 to change the postal address of the housing estate he was building in Earlsfort from Clondalkin to Lucan.
Photograph: Bryan O'Brien
MAHON TRIBUNAL: A leading builder has told the Mahon tribunal that he paid former Fianna Fáil TD Mr Liam Lawlor over £40,000 to get the postal address of a housing estate changed from Clondalkin to Lucan.
Mr Séamus Ross of Menolly Homes estimated the change allegedly arranged by Mr Lawlor was worth £5,000 a house to him, or a total of over £2.5 million. The payments were not political contributions, he said.
Mr Lawlor went on to press him for money throughout the 1990s, he said, and he made further payments of £5,000, political contributions amounting to £2,500 as well as a £20,000 discount on a house which was furnished at a cost of £5,000.
Mr Ross was summonsed to appear before the tribunal yesterday after receiving legal advice that it would be "inappropriate" for him to attend voluntarily for interview by tribunal lawyers.
He said that he first got to know Mr Lawlor in 1984 when he moved to Newcastle and met people who worked for the politician. He supplied him with a caravan at election time and gave him a contribution of £500. In 1996, his firm, Menolly Homes, started work on a site for 550 houses on the Clondalkin side of Lucan. Rival builders in the area started telling their customers that Mr Ross's homes at Earlsfort were inferior because they were located in Clondalkin, not Lucan.
Mr Ross said he could not believe this when he heard it. He tested the matter by addressing letters to himself at his site office, addressed to Lucan. They were not delivered.
He asked the postman, who told him they wouldn't be delivered and he would have to collect the letters himself at the post office.
Mr Ross said the difference in address would lead to a difference in selling price, which he estimated at £5,000 for a three-bed house.
One Saturday when he was working on the site, Mr Lawlor drove in, dressed in a tracksuit, Mr Ross said.
He showed some surprise when told that the site was not located in Lucan and said he would "look into it".
He said three or four days later, Mr Lawlor returned and said: "I might have some good news for you. I can have the address put right for you. But you're going to have to pay me."
Mr Ross said the politician asked for either £30,000 or £50,000. He said he could not believe it and told Mr Lawlor the amount was very high. "That's what it will cost you. That's what it's worth to your houses," Mr Lawlor is said to have replied. Mr Ross said he could pay £20,000 in cash, which Mr Lawlor accepted.
He collected the money from Mr Ross's house later that evening.
Mr Ross said the selling agent was provided with a letter from An Post stating that the postal address of Earlsfort was in Lucan. But he had not been able to find this letter. Asked if he had considered whether there was anything wrong or inappropriate in handing over this money to Mr Lawlor, the witness replied: "No".
He thought Mr Lawlor, as a politician, had the power to do "this type of thing".
He told Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, that he had not made any representation to An Post about the matter. He had been thinking of this when Mr Lawlor called into his site.
In July 1996, Mr Ross said he made a further payment of £20,000 to Mr Lawlor.
One evening, Mr Lawlor came to his office and asked for money.
He asked for cash, saying: "Things are going well for Earlsfort because of what I done for you."
Mr Ross asked how much he was looking for.
Mr Lawlor asked for £20,000 or £30,000. "I said to him: 'when is this going to stop?' I wasn't happy with the man. This was getting on my nerves. He was coming more often than I wanted to see him."
Mr Lawlor offered to provide Mr Ross with an invoice. The following day, he gave the builder an invoice in the name of Baltic Timber Products for an amount of £20,002.79. This was done "to make it look official".
Asked who suggested this, Mr Ross said "it certainly wasn't me".
Asked if he considered it a legitimate invoice, he conceded that he had "some doubts" about it.
The cheque was lodged to an account in London, his accountant had told him.
Mr Lawlor's "justification" was that he had had the postal address of the houses at Earlsfort changed.
© 2003 The Irish Times
 
From the posting guidelines



 
Ah look, this is nonsense.

Firstly, we the voters don't get to choose the members of the judiciary. We do choose the members of the government.

Secondly, Judge Mahon has accepted he was at fault and has paid all the tax due, with penalties and interest. Furthermore, it is not at all clear from the report you refer to whether he deliberately evaded tax or whether it was an error made in good faith.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that Flynn knowingly encouraged and facilitated illegal tax evasion and more importantly to this day won't accept she did anything wrong. Yet, Bertie would have us accept she is suitable for ministerial office.
 
gonk said:
Firstly, we the voters don't get to choose the members of the judiciary. We do choose the members of the government.
Click to expand...
Actually, we don't. That privilege is in the hands of the Taoiseach.


I agree with you 100% on this. However, I don't agree with your conclusion that everyone who votes FF must therefore either support, or be regarded as tolerant of, tax evasion.

I personally support the Mahon Tribunal (despite its many flaws) and its work. I do not condemn it out of hand on the basis of Judge Mahon's past tax indiscretions. However that does not mean that I either support or am tolerant of tax evasion. If you take the opposite view, fair enough that is your opinion, but I don't for a second believe that you can credibly label as such the large numbers of Irish people who support the Mahon Tribunal.
 
ubiquitous said:
Actually, we don't. That privilege is in the hands of the Taoiseach.
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to split hairs, then you are strictly speaking right. But the Taoiseach only gained this privilege by being elected to the Dáil himself along with sufficient other members of Fianna Fáil and selects the members of the Government from other elected members of the Dáil. (I know technically he could appoint members of the Senate too, but this very rarely happens - I can only remember it being done once.)


I do not take the opposite view - you raised the issue of the Mahon Tribunal, not me. Please don't invent opinions and then ascribe them to me. I have already pointed out that Judge Mahon accepted he was at fault and settled his outstanding tax liabilities. He also made full disclosure of his settlement with the Revenue when he was applying for appointment to the bench.

Flynn, on the other hand told RTÉ in a interview last June - "'I never believed I did anything wrong. I have always believed that I have worked within the law." (http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0625/flynnb.html)

For so long as the Irish people continue to elect the likes of Flynn, there is no reason for our representatives to take ethics seriously - we're clearly sending them the message that we don't.

She was expelled from Fianna Fáil following the failure of her libel appeal. What has changed in the meantime that would justify her being readmitted and potentially appointed to government when she adamantly continues to deny any wrongdoing?

Actually, it's obvious - the election of three Fine Gael TDs in Mayo.
 
gonk said:
For so long as the Irish people continue to elect the likes of Flynn, there is no reason for our representatives to take ethics seriously - we're clearly sending them the message that we don't.
Click to expand...
Is any party ethically pure?
Exclude the parties that have not held office as they have not been tempted by power.
 
Purple said:
Is any party ethically pure?
Click to expand...

No, and at a personal level, none of us is without sin. But the fact that an ideal world is unobtainable doesn't mean we can't hold our public representatives to reasonable ethical standards and sanction them appropriately when they fall short.

The problem I have with Flynn is not so much what she did at NIB, as her attitude now.

She encouraged and facilitated her clients to illegally evade their tax. To the extent that she got commission on the resulting sales and her career was advanced, she personally benefitted from the crimes of her clients. If she put up her hands and said, "OK that was wrong and I shouldn't have done it", I wouldn't have any problem with giving her a second chance.

But she insists vehemently she did nothing wrong. Presumably, that means if she was in the same situation, she wouldn't see anything wrong with repeating her facilitation of tax evasion. Fianna Fáil - rightly - disciplined her when the courts found against her. Now, and as far as I can judge purely for reasons of electoral strategy, Bertie would have us believe that unrepentant as she is, she would still make a great minister. I beg to differ.
 
I agree with you about Flynn, my only qualification is that she was doing what so many others working in AIB were doing and she did so with at least the knowledge, and possibly at the instruction, of her employer. It galls me that AIB have not been targeted by RTE or the print media as doing so doesn't serve any political agenda.
 

I agree that Flynn wasn't the only one at it and lets be honest here, there are few bankers from that era with clean hands. I have to agree with the poster who said that it is her attitude now and when she was caught more than the crime itself that is more galling. If she had come out and explained that yes she did it but that it was a policy of NIB, most people would have gone fair enough and moved on. Unfortuantly she decided to sue the State braodcaster which is funded by the taxpayer all the way to the Supreme Court and lost every legal battle. And she is quiet entitled to do this but she then leaves the taxpayer out of pocket and shows no remorse for her actions and has yet to admit to any wrongdoing. As far as I am concerned, the people of Mayo are entitled to elect her to represent them but I do not want her representing me in a ministerial position.
 
You would have to wonder about an ethical code that absolves an individual for their crimes but condemns them for their arrogance and attitude.
 
ubiquitous said:
You would have to wonder about an ethical code that absolves an individual for their crimes but condemns them for their arrogance and attitude.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't remorse and acceptance of guilt play a part in the severity of someones punishment? Judges look at it all the time with regard to sentencing. And no-body is talking about absolving her for the crime. She was punished by Fianna Fail at the time and most people would have accepted that she had paid her dues and allowed her back into the fold if she had shown any basic understanding of what she had done wrong. Beverly Flynn has shown no inclination to apologise for her actions and so why should I support her move back into government any more than I would support a criminal getting early release while still laughing at his/her victim?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register