Those QIAIF / ICAV thingys were gas. If my understanding is correct (cc @GeoffreyBoycott, @Tim_Riggins) and as alluded to in the article, the aim of Oirish Revenue in permitting this structure with negligible / no tax was to attract investment funds to the country and the jobs they bring. But the law or regulation or statute or whatever was drafted so loosely that the legal firms observed that anyone could set up one of them, throw assets in it, buy / sell more assets and pay no CGT. So you had wealthy individuals and the likes of vulture funds using the structure for property plays, for example. Has the loophole been closed now as the tax expert in the article claimed?
1 Like
Fuck FG,Harris just got it in the neck on rte radio one ref the bodies in the corridor in a Waterford hospital, delighted for the squirmy bastard
Leo the liar really fucked him under the bus when he said there was no evidence of what was said in the letter.
Correct,pity it wasnât a real bus
Jerry Buttimer reckons James Connolly would be ashamed to have his name associated with an aggressive protest
1 Like
Jerry B is a bollox,became senator after duly failing in local elections
Is there any way this broadband rollout wonât end in absolute farce?
3bn over 25 years 
Leave it to fuck, you useless cunts.
1 Like
100 plus contractors involved, not a chance.
The Times view on the National Broadband Plan: Lost Connection
The risks inherent in the National Broadband Plan are clear. Ministers will be repeating the mistakes of the Celtic Tiger years if they approve it today
Share
Save
Today the cabinet is expected to approve the National Broadband Plan to deliver high-speed internet to more than 540,000 homes and premises. This episode is an exercise in extraordinary folly that raises serious questions about not only the government but our ability as a state to learn from past, disastrous mistakes.
There is not just one flashing warning about the plan. The âŹ3 billion estimate is six times what we were told the plan would originally cost and is going to be a massive burden on the exchequer for years.
There are times when investment in infrastructure on this scale is required but there are strong grounds for believing that this is not one of them. For starters, the state will not own the infrastructure at the end of the investment.
There are also massive doubts as to whether fibre-optic cable will still be cutting-edge technology in ten years, never mind 100. Many experts believe that, given the pace of technology innovation, the ability to communicate in remote places could be transformed by other means such as 5G mobile technology by the time the project is completed.
Then there is the question over what the take-up will be. In some rural areas where fibre-optic cable is available as few as one in five homes have signed up. If that were replicated across the entire area covered by the broadband plan it would render an already questionable scheme utterly unjustifiable.
The questions do not end there. The withdrawal of key players such as Eir and Siro â the joint venture involving ESB and Vodafone â means there is one bidder remaining in the process, led by a US private investment company. SSE, a British utility company, and John Laing, a major infrastructure firm, withdrew from that consortium last year. Opposition politicians have questioned whether Granahan McCourt has the experience and expertise for a project of this nature and size.
The biggest warning signal of all is coming from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Senior civil servants have bluntly â and in an almost unprecedented manner â warned ministers that the plan does not represent good value for money. It is to their immense credit that they have done so. Are ministers today seriously going to overlook that advice?
It is worth recalling that during the Celtic Tiger years civil servants did not do enough to raise the alarm over the governmentâs reckless fiscal policy and banksâ wayward lending. While some did raise concerns, they were much criticised afterwards for not being far more forceful.
It is quite clearly doing so on this occasion and it seems as if it will be ignored. Coming a decade after the crash that virtually bankrupted this country, that is an extraordinary development. It is one that seems impossible to justify given the many legitimate concerns about the broadband plan.
Of course the provision of high-speed internet across the country is important. It should be as widespread as possible but it cannot be, as some ministers seem to think, at any cost. Nor should we disregard the evidence suggesting the likelihood of low take-up for the service or the potentially far cheaper alternative technologies that could render fibre-optic obsolete in a short period of time.
Despite what ministers claim, comparisons with the far-sighted rural electrification programmes of the past are deeply misleading. That technology is still relevant and valuable today and it is owned by the state.
There is still time to do the right thing here, even if there is a political hit in doing so. If the government isnât willing to call a halt then the opposition parties must, in the national interest
The Newstalk âTech Specialistâ was on with Yatesy telling everyone that all these rural folks will have to pay 100 quid each to a wholesaler but wanted to clarify and make sure everyone knew that eir or virgin would still be who would take their money every month. She took a good 5 mins to explain this.
There was another lad on saying it was unfair that the Government are unfair in making all their services available as online only when some poor farmer with no broadband has to rely on his local starbucks for WiFi 
2 Likes
None whatsoever,in our own country weâre not great,yet once abroad we turn into imaginative planners, architecs, outstanding construction workers,developed actors,and less piss heads,has to be down to our archaic planning and mismanagement by successive governments
My rant over ( for a while fucking Leo the Langer is driving me 
s
Ape that fella. Trying to knock it on the radio last night.
Thereâs some stuff to come out today from senior civil servants about why they shouldnât be doing this and itâs terrible value for money. In 5 years time they may as well have rolled out telegraph cables.
The parents recently switched from their broadband provider at home. They have gone from the phone line internet connection to a satellite broadband provider. The difference is close is minimal, i think the satellite is around âŹ40 a month while the telephone is âŹ35 but the telephone broadband would barely exceed 2mb even in offpeak times. The satellite broadband is 10mb + even at peak times.
Surely for a 3 billion spend there is other technology out there which would be better to use from a future proofing perspective.
1 Like
A 5 year tribunal to follow . Eminent Senior Counsels to fund a yacht and a villa in Cannes from their earnings .
I heard that alright. She was at pains to point out that the connection fee was just a connection fee and that will have to pay for internet EVERY month, not just a once off payment of âŹ100 for internet for life. It was very useful information in fairness to her.
1 Like