|
|
Post by whyohwhy on Jun 13, 2006 10:34:09 GMT
Well, what are peoples thoughts on the passing of our ex-taoiseach?
I think he was a great man, the founding father of the Celtic Tiger and he stood up to Maggie Thatcher (something British politicans never did). I wouldn't be working where I am now if it wasn't for him
Sure, he took a few bob and some Charvet shirts, here and there, but for what he did for the country, its a minor indiscretion.
|
|
|
|
Post by therock67 on Jun 13, 2006 10:37:00 GMT
I presume you're fishing for some reaction there.
I'm not glad the guy died because he wasn't doing any harm in later life but he should have been in prison. His public image was that of a republican but in reality he did nothing to advance the cause of nationalists in the six counties, unlike Albert Reynolds who was genuinely committed to resolving the troubles.
We are far too tolerant of corruption in this country and he was worse than most.
|
|
|
|
Post by whyohwhy on Jun 13, 2006 10:38:41 GMT
I presume you're fishing for some reaction there. I'm not glad the guy died because he wasn't doing any harm in later life but he should have been in prison. His public image was that of a republican but in reality he did nothing to advance the cause of nationalists in the six counties, unlike Albert Reynolds who was genuinely committed to resolving the troubles. We are far too tolerant of corruption in this country and he was worse than most. No, genuinely believe he was a great man |
|
eamo
Ger Loughnane
Posts: 331
|
Post by eamo on Jun 13, 2006 10:43:12 GMT
I presume you're fishing for some reaction there. I'm not glad the guy died because he wasn't doing any harm in later life but he should have been in prison. His public image was that of a republican but in reality he did nothing to advance the cause of nationalists in the six counties, unlike Albert Reynolds who was genuinely committed to resolving the troubles. We are far too tolerant of corruption in this country and he was worse than most. I had set up a seperate thread before I saw that of whyohwhy's so I deleted it and put my response here in case anyone is wondering. My view of Haughey was that he had the overall good of the Irish people at heart. He felt that he should cream some off though - seeing that he was the leader. I think that he has been harshly treated in subsequent years with people jumping on the bandwagon to criticise him. As Taoiseach in the 80s, he lay the seeds for the Celtic Tiger and his contribution to the prosperous Ireland of today should be underestimated. |
|
eamo
Ger Loughnane
Posts: 331
|
Post by eamo on Jun 13, 2006 10:52:14 GMT
I presume you're fishing for some reaction there. I'm not glad the guy died because he wasn't doing any harm in later life but he should have been in prison. His public image was that of a republican but in reality he did nothing to advance the cause of nationalists in the six counties, unlike Albert Reynolds who was genuinely committed to resolving the troubles. We are far too tolerant of corruption in this country and he was worse than most. Sure Albert Reynolds was committed to resolving the Troubles but boy he hasn't let us forget it. Talk about looking for praise. He is a schmuck. Anyway I think there was a push on in the mid nineties for a long lasting deal with the Hume/Adams talks. I think if Haughey was there the same result would have happened. I actually think that Bertie Ahern has done more for the North than Albert Reynolds ever did. I take it Rock that you are not a fan of Haughey's part in the Arms Crisis? I think that it was scandalous that the government of the South did not interveve there when their citizens were being discriminated against. Perhaps Haughey had an ulterior motive, I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by whyohwhy on Jun 13, 2006 10:59:17 GMT
I take it Rock that you are not a fan of Haughey's part in the Arms Crisis? I think that it was scandalous that the government of the South did not interveve there when their citizens were being discriminated against. Perhaps Haughey had an ulterior motive, I don't know. Remember Haughey was acquitted of all charges in relation to the Arms Crisis |
|
eamo
Ger Loughnane
Posts: 331
|
Post by eamo on Jun 13, 2006 11:00:43 GMT
I take it Rock that you are not a fan of Haughey's part in the Arms Crisis? I think that it was scandalous that the government of the South did not interveve there when their citizens were being discriminated against. Perhaps Haughey had an ulterior motive, I don't know. Remember Haughey was acquitted of all charges in relation to the Arms Crisis After all he did in subsequent years - do you really believe that? |
|
|
|
Post by whyohwhy on Jun 13, 2006 11:03:21 GMT
Remember Haughey was acquitted of all charges in relation to the Arms Crisis After all he did in subsequent years - do you really believe that? Believe what? That he was acquitted of all charges? yes |
|
|
|
Post by therock67 on Jun 13, 2006 11:04:17 GMT
To be honest I don't know enough about the arms crisis to comment either way. I'm not really disputing the radicalism of his early days but when in power he did little to advance the cause of republicans.
The biggest problem with the man was his pride. He was full of ideas and theories in opposition and as a junior and finance minister but when he got into power he did fuck all to change anything. The IFSC is always trumpeted as his major achievement and it has helped revitalise the Irish economy but he was also Taoiseach 3 times from 1980 to 1992 when the economy was in a dreadful state.
Anyway I can't get away from the fact that he received over €12m in backhand payments in his career - known payments that have been proved by the tribunal. I'm sure there must be far, far more we don't know about. That's not creaming off the top: that is helping yourself to a huge portion of money while thousands of people who can't get jobs are forced to emigrate. He acted as Taoiseach in his own interests of wealth and power, and not for the people of this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by whyohwhy on Jun 13, 2006 11:06:17 GMT
He acted as Taoiseach in his own interests of wealth and power, and not for the people of this country. I dont dispute him taking money, but i believe he did act in the interest of the country |
|
eamo
Ger Loughnane
Posts: 331
|
Post by eamo on Jun 13, 2006 11:12:21 GMT
Anyway I can't get away from the fact that he received over €12m in backhand payments in his career - known payments that have been proved by the tribunal. I'm sure there must be far, far more we don't know about. That's not creaming off the top: that is helping yourself to a huge portion of money while thousands of people who can't get jobs are forced to emigrate. He acted as Taoiseach in his own interests of wealth and power, and not for the people of this country. Good argument there Rock. I stand corrected. |
|
|
|
Post by therock67 on Jun 13, 2006 11:14:30 GMT
He acted as Taoiseach in his own interests of wealth and power, and not for the people of this country. I dont dispute him taking money, but i believe he did act in the interest of the country Any politican who is taking bribes and backhanders from powerful businessmen has ceased acting in the interests of the country. |
|
|
|
Post by whyohwhy on Jun 13, 2006 11:16:08 GMT
I dont dispute him taking money, but i believe he did act in the interest of the country Any politican who is taking bribes and backhanders from powerful businessmen has ceased acting in the interests of the country. i disagee, i say that he did both |
|
eamo
Ger Loughnane
Posts: 331
|
Post by eamo on Jun 13, 2006 11:16:30 GMT
After all he did in subsequent years - do you really believe that? Believe what? That he was acquitted of all charges? yes You were defending Haughey on the basis that he was acquitted. He was acquitted but that does not defend him. His later life showed him up to be the dishonest crook that he was, which leads one to suspect that he may not have been totally innocent in the Arms Trial. If you lie with dogs, you wake up with fleas... |
|
|
|
Post by whyohwhy on Jun 13, 2006 11:22:52 GMT
Believe what? That he was acquitted of all charges? yes You were defending Haughey on the basis that he was acquitted. He was acquitted but that does not defend him. His later life showed him up to be the dishonest crook that he was, which leads one to suspect that he may not have been totally innocent in the Arms Trial. If you lie with dogs, you wake up with fleas... He was acquitted in the court of law, which is of a higher legal standing than the tribunals (i think). He should'nt have to be defended if he was acquitted. How can it lead you to suspect he may not have been innocent in the Arms Trial? when he was found innocent along with Blaney(?). This is just regarding the arms crisis and the alleged purchase of arms for the catholic nordies. Blatantly guilty of taking backhanders from Ben Dunne and the like |
|
|
|
Post by humbug on Jun 13, 2006 21:48:23 GMT
why oh why whyohwhy?
Here is the reaction you are looking for...
Haughey was a complete crook and he rode this country up the ass for years.
In the 80s this country was on its fughin knees and Charlie was taking backhanders left, right and centre, living the high life. People have been praising his innovations...IFSC, bus passes, temple bar, the 1965 Succession Act etc. etc. but what the fugh do you expect from a head of government? Do people expect a head of government not to be innovative? It is the fughin job of a head of government to be innovative. They are the cream of the crop...they hold the highest public office there is. People think Charlie did us some kind of massive favour by coming up with this stuff...
His indiscretions, as you call them, must be viewed in isolation. What he did as Taoiseach has nothing to do with it. He was, as I think I've made clear above, just doing his job for which he was well paid.
Re the IFSC: Haughey admitted in evidence to the Moriarty Tribunal that Dermot Desmond was the brains behind it. Not such a great legacy after all although I must admit the Succession Act was very well drafted and was a much needed piece of legislation.
|
|
|
|
Post by iamthelaw on Jun 13, 2006 23:18:21 GMT
Hadn't realised he had died till I logged on to this thread just now. Am definitely too focussed on the football. Too late for a proper analysis on my part, but one point: My view of Haughey was that he had the overall good of the Irish people at heart. He felt that he should cream some off though - seeing that he was the leader. Haughey was creaming it off long before he ever came near the leadership, so that can't be put forward as a justification of his corruption. his contribution to the prosperous Ireland of today should be underestimated. Was that slip Freudian? George Bush would be proud. |
|
|
|
Post by whyohwhy on Jun 14, 2006 7:41:51 GMT
why oh why whyohwhy? Here is the reaction you are looking for... Haughey was a complete crook and he rode this country up the ass for years. In the 80s this country was on its fughin knees and Charlie was taking backhanders left, right and centre, living the high life. People have been praising his innovations...IFSC, bus passes, temple bar, the 1965 Succession Act etc. etc. but what the fugh do you expect from a head of government? Do people expect a head of government not to be innovative? It is the fughin job of a head of government to be innovative. They are the cream of the crop...they hold the highest public office there is. People think Charlie did us some kind of massive favour by coming up with this stuff... His indiscretions, as you call them, must be viewed in isolation. What he did as Taoiseach has nothing to do with it. He was, as I think I've made clear above, just doing his job for which he was well paid. Re the IFSC: Haughey admitted in evidence to the Moriarty Tribunal that Dermot Desmond was the brains behind it. Not such a great legacy after all although I must admit the Succession Act was very well drafted and was a much needed piece of legislation. As was the artists exemption act for which he was responsible. The country was on its knees indeed in the 80's, but it isnt now, and I believe the reason is because of CJH, who was the founding father of the Celtic Tiger. There were lots of other countries on their knees in the 80's, so you cant blame him for the world economy, oil crisis etc etc. Look at Britain and Maggie in the 80's, she closed the fooking mines and made thousands redundant, from which Wales still hasn't recovered. She brought in Poll Tax. At least CJH didnt do that - as in cripple a countrys natual resource industry. He also turned things around then in the late eighties, whether that was a tacit admission there somehwere that he fucked in the late seventies and early eighties is another question. I also realise the impact that the labour government of the mid-eighties had in this changearound Thre have been lots of goverments prior to CJH's who haven't been very fucking innovative. As I stated earlier, I wasnt looking for a reaction, just looking for fellow forum members opinion on 'The Boss', which has been divisive as usual. |
|
|
|
Post by Ball Ox on Jun 14, 2006 7:56:47 GMT
Does anyone remember the humurous incident when he went to find out what the J in his name stood for. He found out when he found the mural that his hippy mother painted for him, it stood for "Jay."
RIP Charles Jay Haughey
|
|
|
|
Post by whyohwhy on Jun 14, 2006 8:19:06 GMT
|
|
eamo
Ger Loughnane
Posts: 331
|
Post by eamo on Jun 14, 2006 8:37:33 GMT
Hadn't realised he had died till I logged on to this thread just now. Am definitely too focussed on the football. Too late for a proper analysis on my part, but one point: My view of Haughey was that he had the overall good of the Irish people at heart. He felt that he should cream some off though - seeing that he was the leader. Haughey was creaming it off long before he ever came near the leadership, so that can't be put forward as a justification of his corruption. Was that slip Freudian? George Bush would be proud. I never justified his corruption. 'Creaming it' off refers to his corruption. I am not saying that Ireland is a better place now than it was twenty years ago - it is just more prosperous. i.e. there is more money around. There can be no doubt that Haughey played a major part in that. I find it hillarious to hear some of Haughey's interviews from years ago. He gives another level to the word 'hypocrisy'. He was on last night about how nobody should let power go to their head. He said that a coalition government was no government. And most criminally of all, while he was urging everyone to tighten their belts he was evading taxes and spending tax payers money on shirts and God knows what else. |
|
|
|
Post by Ball Ox on Jun 14, 2006 10:13:25 GMT
If he's so smart, how come he's dead?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmyhillschin on Jun 14, 2006 17:27:48 GMT
I'm surprised he never tried to declare his island Inishvickillane a free state. He would have been free to do what he wanted if he had have pulled it off, no better buachaill.
|
|
