Cartoon – ‘Dodgy emissions…’

Stormont Committee cartoon

The Stormont Committee for Finance and Personnel yesterday voted for Approach One, they would hear in public evidence from the lone loyalist blogger. Most of the pexceedings were taken up with the oral presentation, but Máirtín Ó Muilleoir asked an important question towards the end: who are the sources behind the detailed information? Adding that he would like to bring them before the Committee.

, , , , , ,

  • chrisjones2

    Máirtín Ó Muilleoir hit the spot. Who is feeding Bryson and why? There’s “Trouble ‘t Mill” in DUP

  • Granni Trixie

    Whilst of course knowing who is the power behind the throne would be fascinating, that is a separate matter to the alleged knowledge and its veracity or not.

    As an observer of people I also think it is interesting to ponder on the level of trust which appears to exist between Bryson and the person feeding him information. I imagine there is one likely suspect in most people’s minds but I have dismissed him as I don’t believe he is likely to risk all in this way. Has to be somebody in centre of things.

    Also wonder should the allegations be proved accurate will players such as civil servants or other politicians who were in the know get damaged in the fallout even if they did not benefit financially? Or in those circs was UUP playing a game with faux outrage to deflect attention?

    There’s a musical in it whatever the truth or outcome.

  • Cosmo

    Something that keeps bugging me is, considering the sums these US Hedge funds and development projects are playing with, is that £7m divvied among 5 people, is a relatively small amount of money….
    other payments made elsewhere?

  • Granni Trixie

    O and there’s more. Some of Brysons information on his blog seems to relate to an ongoing property deal at Dundonald and I would like to know if this comes into the Stormont Committees remit? Or if true is to be quietly forgotten? It’s all very well analysing the past but I’m also interested in analysis of present systems of awarding contracts etc .

  • Sharpie

    Deepthroat

  • chrisjones2

    What comes out the back end depends on what fuel goes in the tank (unless its a VW when it also depends on how much pee someone squirts into the exhaust)

    So

    1 who filled up the car
    2 who peed in the tank

  • chrisjones2

    £7m … a relatively small amount

    You must be an MLA!

  • Cosmo

    these US hedge fund guys have personal fortunes of billions…
    our chaps have been rubbing shoulders with them..

  • chrisjones2

    Yes …but ours subsist on fish suppers and Iron Bru not Filet Mignon and Petrus ’64

    Its all relative

  • Sliothar

    Mick Wallace has upped the ante today to around £45 mill in fixers’ fees.
    We’re talking very expensive turkey now!

  • chrisjones2
  • Cosmo

    Florida swimming pool liners cost the earth, these days!

  • C Mac Siacais

    Máirtín Ó Muilleoir????????????

  • barnshee

    Chaps and chapesses brush up on you knowledge of financing and refinancing

    1 Nama sold the debts to American investors

    2 The American investors went to the people who owed the money said “give us 50 cents on the Euro and the debt is cleared “( this suggests that the Americans paid (considerably?) less

    3 The people who owe money now have to borrow the money to pay the 50c in the Euro to regain “their” property ( a bit of bargain I would have thought)

    4 Given their record those trying to borrow will have to pay stiff interests rates and “arrangement” fees this is common ( check mortgage offers) and should be well documented. These arrangement fees are the monies Mick is girning about and are perfectly legal

    The details on proceeds of sales by NAMA need to be made public – it may well be that a crowd of sharp yanks wiped the floor with a bunch financially naive paddies-
    The fundamental facts are that the property was all vested in NAMA an arm of ROI government policy The power and authority to dispose of the property was all in the ROI- Nobody in NI as far as I can see had any authority to dispose of NAMA property

    IF they were seen off- who saw them off?

  • Cosmo

    thank you. helpful.
    1. But, if all ROI ‘responsibility’, what was the NAMA committee Cushnahan was on, and why?
    2. also, your penultimate para is true, it doesnt seem to agree with what Burton said, yesterday in Dail.
    (by the way, I’m not too awe-inspired by US business expertise – vulture funds would just have paid ahead/fixed up for local knowledge among the willing paddies looking for their cut, nth and sth, of what contra-deals could be done, ahead of the deal )

  • chrisjones2

    This is more like Stormont