Irish 'involved' in Bolivia 'assassination attempt'

[cHeal]

Not really, it runs in the family, his father was a land agent for Lord Lucan of the hated Bingham Landlord family who inflicted pain and misery on the native irish in Mayo for hundreds of years

Yeah but we got a rather spiffing little cricket field once he f*cked off

[Seán E. Ryan]

Jumping head first into tin foil land here.

IRMS and their incredibly weak back story, sounds like an intelligence operation.

[cHeal]

!!! We are through the looking glass here people!

Yeah the whole, non employment thing is very odd indeed, but it's not really enough to assume they are an intelligence operation. Could be some form of recruitment front set up by the kinds of people who need mecenaries?

[Sam Lord]

!!! We are through the looking glass here people!

Yeah the whole, non employment thing is very odd indeed, but it's not really enough to assume they are an intelligence operation. Could be some form of recruitment front set up by the kinds of people who need mecenaries?

I'm actually interested in whether they are being honest and meeting their legal obligations.

It kinda bugs me when all sorts of savage cutbacks are taking place that we have companies with huge contracts like the Shell one apparently making no money, paying no taxes, and seemingly employing no one.

[Seán E. Ryan]

!!! We are through the looking glass here people!

Yeah the whole, non employment thing is very odd indeed, but it's not really enough to assume they are an intelligence operation. Could be some form of recruitment front set up by the kinds of people who need mecenaries?

On the one hand I find it kinda hard to believe myself, it being such a shoddy operation.

On the other hand, we have the Irish State throwing both the armed forces and the Gardaí into Mayo like money's going out of fashion (and indeed it does seem to be). I'd be very surprised if there wasn't an Irish intelligence operation in progress too.

That said there are many indicators that IRMS, if it's a cloak and daggers operation, is not an exclusive Irish operation. Bolivia being an example, Africa too. Unless we're operating a freelance intelligence service. That'd not surprise me either. We rarely act solely in our own interests.

[ON THE ONE ROAD]

last year when the solitaire arrived first fishermen where saying there was a brit sub beyod out of the bay. din din din.

if irms were only there since last year who was the securuty company there before them? though think all the wird video tapeing out side the compound started about a year ago, going from memory here.

[R2ITOS]

excerpted from VIO Venezuela Daily News Roundup - May 29, 2006


In Bolivia last week, President Chavez warned that recent comments by
President Bush might portend intervention in South America's poorest nation.
Just months after President Evo Morales won an enormous electoral victory,
the U.S. government has already raised "concerns" about the democratic
nature of Morales' administration. Said Chavez, "If the U.S. president says
he's worried the democracy is eroding in Bolivia, this simply means that
he's already given the green light to start conspiring against the
democratic government of Bolivia."

[montaillou]

That does sound curious. Would need to see the accounts to make any judgements.

Possible (but not suggesting its the case) that IRMS provide the personnel but Shell directly covers the cost of employment, with IRMS then charging a fee for providing trained personnel. Shell might not necessarily employ the security, (so they would be registered with IRMS) but refund the employment costs to IRMS; so that no wages charge would appear in IRMS accounts - though such an accounting treatment would be questionable. [It should say in the notes to the accounts however, the number of staff employed, possibly with a breakdown of the type of employee ie. admin, security etc]

But then again such arrangements with IRMS may give Shell and IRMS tax advantages 'going forward'. Remember the odious Finance Act of 1993 authored by one B. Ahern which gave Big Oil that lovely generous tax write-off regime. But it's reasonable to ask why this special treatment for IRMS? They (IRMS) effectively gain complete externalisation of the risks involved in taking on the Corrib 'security' subcontract and have their corporate tax affairs resolved to their advantage. One of the risks involved in this contract is that the opposition to the Corrib Gas Project proves more resilient and resourceful than the original contractees had made allowances for. That would mean extra goon-hours to be paid for and firearms to be signed out (from where? A hanging question indeed). Also, Shell have a history of favouring particular outfits when it comes to the supply of expertise that can't be got in-house, be it technical/engineering (Allseas) or nefarious (IRMS), and building relationships for the long term.

As for the direct benefits for Shell let's go back to that lovely Finance Act of Mr. Ahern's authorship. All ancillary development costs (oh, like having 200 mercs about the place) can be written off against present and future tax liabilities for energy companies like Shell E&P Ireland. Effectively, us tax-paying saps will be paying for Shell's private army which is a tax-deductible expense courtesy of the Cheap Leader, Bertie.

Such postulated relationships would suggest that Shell's relationship with IRMS is not just a temporary contractual arrangement between strangers, but the opening phase of a long-term strategy by Shell of having persons and entities it can utterly rely on in this jurisdiction. Shell = IRMS = Fianna Fail. A tame political party (of a whole stable that Shell has) and a private army.

[Cathar]

B Shell have a history of favouring particular outfits when it comes to the supply of expertise that can't be got in-house, be it technical/engineering (Allseas) or nefarious (IRMS), and building relationships for the long term.

Such postulated relationships would suggest that Shell's relationship with IRMS is not just a temporary contractual arrangement between strangers, but the opening phase of a long-term strategy by Shell of having persons and entities it can utterly rely on in this jurisdiction. Shell = IRMS = Fianna Fail. A tame political party (of a whole stable that Shell has) and a private army.

To equate Shell=FF isnt the complete equation. I remember hearing on the car radio Enda Kenny being interviewed and saying that the then MD of Shell E&P Andy Pyle (now retired) was a long term friend and personal adviser.
I cant find an online reference to this. The equation should be Shell=FF=FG.
Remember

In a US court are the minutes of a meeting, held in London, of a Committee of Royal Dutch Shell Managing Directors on Monday and Tuesday, July 22 and 23, 2002. It is US Case 3:04-cv-00374-JAP-JJH, Document 403-2 Filed 20/11/2007 (Royal Dutch Shell). The following is an extract: “It was noted that development of the Corrib field may be delayed until 2004 as planning consent has been refused for the terminal. The Committee queried whether the Group has sufficiently well-placed contacts with the Irish government and regulators. Paul Skinner undertook to explore this issue further in consultation with the Country Chairman in Ireland.”

They quite obviously had.

B As for the direct benefits for Shell let's go back to that lovely Finance Act of Mr. Ahern's authorship.

Payments to Mr. Ahern in relation to altering tax legislation was specifically excluded from the tribunal after a legal challenge in the High Court.

[Cathar]

I
"...despite the fact that Mr Downes has publicly spoken of an E8m turnover, the most recent I-RMS accounts, for 2007, show credit and debit figures well below €500,000, with losses in the region of €100,000.

And though the company has claimed to employ over 300 staff, the accounts do not show any PRSI or wage costs, while corporation tax has ranged from just over E600 in 2006 to zero in 2007.

The accounts of other companies owned by Mr Farrell and Mr Downes – Mobile ATM Ltd and European Logistics Security Ltd – also show negligible revenues. There is no mention in any of the annual returns of any subsidiary in Africa. The company did not respond to questions about these apparent inconsistencies but issued a statement to say it ‘works with respected clients in Ireland, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Far East’.

There are no wage or PRSI costs for 2007. Is it really possible that they employed no one in 2007? When did they start the Shell work?

Some have suggested that the men may be employed by a subsidiary company but I don't understand how that could be possible as IRMS is the company licenced to provide security.

Others have suggested that the men are all sub contracted but wouldn't there still be some indication of payments to sub contractors in the accounts?

The Accounts for BUSINESS MOBILE SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED reg. No. 390867 which trades as IRMS or Integrated Risk Management Servoces are abbridged.
This means that no Profit and Loss Accounts were filed so no details on wages or turnover is available.

At the end of 2007 it shows accumulated losses of €92715 compared to accumulated profits of €83396 which sugests a loss for the year of €176111.

As the accumulated losses exceed more than 50% of the paid up share capital (€100) the company was failed to comply with Article 40(1) of the Companies Amendment act 1983 which require certain actions to be taken when a "financial situation" exists.

The Directors remuneration was €117428.

The only indication of Turnover is debtors of €48884 which would sugest a turnover of between €300,000 to €600,000.

There is an Investment of 72k in something during 2007, ( this might be capitalised costs relating to Shell?)

The depreciation policy they use of 12.5% straight line is unusual and appears to be one to maximise reported profit.(this doesnt affect taxation).

Balance Sheet
Tangible Fixed Assets 112K Total Fixed Assets 184k
Debtors 49k Cash at bank 31k
Creditors short term 320k long term 37k
Net Liabilitues €92615

Their Bank is the Ulster Bank, Clane

On 30/5/2008 there was a charge placed on the assets.