Occupy Galway Group (mod note added)

Fuinseog

Fuinseog wrote: »

yes it did. my friend and I went in for a cuppa because we were curious and wanted to learn more, though it was kind of grotty within. Once the atmosphere became aggressive we left.
I can have a civilised debate with the Muslims or hare krishnas without feeling threatened. somehow with SWP, Free Palestine and other professional protesters this is not possible.

I've encountered some hostility there also. Most of the members are affable, friendly people who will happily have a chat but there are a few who will turn on you the second your ideas and there's are at odds. I was told by one that I was not intelligent enough to understand the issues that are being protested against and another got very intimidating. A few others have been somewhat threatening in their manner and language but I see them as a few bad eggs in the pack.

http://www.facebook.com/galwayindependent
Photo of the protest from the Galway Independent.

Irishgoatman

Hello world wrote: »

I thought u were not reason my posts anymore?
Anyways I should have added that perhaps the founder of the og group sets up the account or the guy who set up the website or the fb page.
http://www.ehow.com/how_5202435_set-donation-fund-through-bank.html[/QUOTE]

I apologize for that. I read the post and not the name of the poster.

Hello world

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Hello world wrote: »

I thought u were not reason my posts anymore?
Anyways I should have added that perhaps the founder of the og group sets up the account or the guy who set up the website or the fb page.
http://www.ehow.com/how_5202435_set-donation-fund-through-bank.html

I apologize for that. I read the post and not the name of the poster.

Once again u can't use the quote function..tut tut tut

Hello world

pg633 wrote: »

http://www.facebook.com/galwayindependent
Photo of the protest from the Galway Independent.

Why the hell is that child there?!? Just because that woman wants to protest all day dosnt mean her child should be sitting out in the cold on the side of the street for the day she should have had someone mind the child or perhaps look after he child before she tries to fix all the country's problems.
Also this handful of people represent the 99%? More like 0.00001%
(stereotypical drums in the background...shocking)

Irishgoatman

Hello world wrote: »

Once again u can't use the quote function..tut tut tut

You are being very pathetic.

I hit the quote button every time. What would you, obviously an all round expert, like me to do?.

Please go away or find more important things to comment on.

Hello world

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Hello world wrote: »

Once again u can't use the quote function..tut tut tut

You are being very pathetic.

I hit the quote button every time. What would you, obviously an all round expert, like me to do?.

Please go away or find more important things to comment on.

I'm not your tutor on bb code!
And it is important that people can quote another person properly otherwise after a few quotes its impossible to tell what people are saying!

Irishgoatman

Will somebody please get Hello world off my back!
I really have no idea what he's rambling on about. It has nothing to do with the point of this thread:mad:.

The main issue at the moment is the payment going to un-secured bond holders.

Many people who bought shares in eircom, a few years ago, lost money but that was the risk they took. The government didn't turn round and say o.k we were wrong to let you buy them here's your money back.

If you speculate and lose out that's the risk YOU take.

Predalien

Fuinseog wrote: »

there are people out there who protest for a living. They got tired of shell to sea, where Shell created about two thousand local jobs, now they are here. Next year they will be elsewhere.

That doesn't address the statement you made saying people should be denied access to fundamental rights attached to living in a democracy? I know some people always need to attach themselves to a cause (which often clouds rational judgement), that certainly does not mean they aren't right about some things.

Others always wish to dismiss any protest no matter the issues involved. It is not just scroungers protesting against the continued bail out of Anglo, during our general election the people voted overwhelmingly in favour of Fine Gael/Labour, both of whom made movements and statements that indicated they would not continue the bondholder madness. They promised they would find another solution. They have gone back on this, denying the will of the electorate.

Irishgoatman

Predalien wrote: »

That doesn't address the statement you made saying people should be denied access to fundamental rights attached to living in a democracy? I know some people always need to attach themselves to a cause (which often clouds rational judgement), that certainly does not mean they aren't right about some things.

Others always wish to dismiss any protest no matter the issues involved. It is not just scroungers protesting against the continued bail out of Anglo, during our general election the people voted overwhelmingly in favour of Fine Gael/Labour, both of whom made movements and statements that indicated they would not continue the bondholder madness. They promised they would find another solution. They have gone back on this, denying the will of the electorate.

All very true.
Well said.

Hello world

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Will somebody please get Hello world off my back!
I really have no idea what he's rambling on about. It has nothing to do with the point of this thread:mad:.

Omfg! BB code is the code used on bulletin boards to format the text
I'm saying if everyone who used boards managed to ****up the quotes function like you continuously manage to do, no one would be able to tell who was saying what unless they read the thread from page 1. I also suggest you learn to read!!

antoobrien

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Yes, I know I wasn't going to comment on this anymore but I would just like to know who at the camp would be taxed?.
If, for tax purposes the money was, on paper, divided between all the people that are there I'm sure it would be below any tax free limit.

That's not how group/club/n.p.o./company taxes work and you (should) know it. Otherwise the likes of GUST would be able to write off any tax liabilities across all the members of the trust.

Donations given to the group is equivalent to income of the group.

Fuinseog

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.facebook.com/galwayindependent
Photo of the protest from the Galway Independent.

you wouldnt mess with the dude on the far right. mountain of a man.

antoobrien

Fuinseog wrote: »

I think some of these people are professional protesters.

I'd be inclined to agree with you there. I seem to recall a protest stand - for the cause du jour - outside Lynch's Castle for quite a while on a Saturday. I haven't noticed them lately (though admittedly last Saturday late afternoon/early evening is the first time in quite a while I've been down town).

Fuinseog

Predalien wrote: »

That doesn't address the statement you made saying people should be denied access to fundamental rights attached to living in a democracy? I know some people always need to attach themselves to a cause (which often clouds rational judgement), that certainly does not mean they aren't right about some things.

Others always wish to dismiss any protest no matter the issues involved. It is not just scroungers protesting against the continued bail out of Anglo, during our general election the people voted overwhelmingly in favour of Fine Gael/Labour, both of whom made movements and statements that indicated they would not continue the bondholder madness. They promised they would find another solution. They have gone back on this, denying the will of the electorate.

I am sure they promised the sun the moon and the stars to get elected. I am not an economist but I believe the problems this country is facing cannot be solved within a week, month or year. every country has its time in the sun and dark. German friends of mine have to survive on four euro an hour. hard times cometh and heir is nowt to b done about it.

'IMF scum out' is sprayed on a wall in Galway. Personally, I think we need supervision as in the past decade we pissed away the money we had including the free money from the EU. here are now more deserving EU member states such as Romania or Bulgaria.
if the banks in this country collapse there will be problems.

Fuinseog

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Will somebody please get Hello world off my back!
I really have no idea what he's rambling on about. It has nothing to do with the point of this thread:mad:.

The main issue at the moment is the payment going to un-secured bond holders.

Many people who bought shares in eircom, a few years ago, lost money but that was the risk they took. The government didn't turn round and say o.k we were wrong to let you buy them here's your money back.

If you speculate and lose out that's the risk YOU take.

there appear to be a variety of issues here if the crude handmade signs in the square are to be believed.

antoobrien

Irishgoatman wrote: »

The main issue at the moment is the payment going to un-secured bond holders.

That's not exactly accurate, as usually is the case when people are talking about bonds (especially the Anglo ones).

The bonds are senior bonds, as such don't need to be secured - hence the lower interest rates paid out for these bonds.

One more time, here's the explanation:

A senior bond has legal status as the first money to be paid in the even of a default (senior creditors - like the Revenue commissioners).

They come before depositors (e.g. retail savings - i.e. you and me).

Then comes subordinated bonds (like the Bristol & West bonds that BOI were looking at burning or the Wexford credit union that lost about €3m).

The senior bondholders that you are proposing be burned did not gamble - they were the investors that supplied long term capital that every company needs, reaping modest rewards.

On the other hand the subordianted bondholders - the ones that got extortionate amount of interest to funding Anglo's "financing" of loans (borrowing on the short term markets to give long term loans) did gamble and they were burned (like the wexford c.u.). Oh yeah, throw in the shareholders (a certain mr quinn can tell you about that).

So in summary there's nothing either illegal or immoral about paying these senior bonds - unless of course you'd like to give up the contents of any and all of your bank & c.u. accounts.

Predalien

antoobrien wrote: »

So in summary there's nothing either illegal or immoral about paying these senior bonds - unless of course you'd like to give up the contents of any and all of your bank & c.u. accounts.

Except that Anglo has failed utterly, senior bondholders in this situation are meant to divvy up what's left (nothing) and move on. There are no real deposits in Anglo so nobody will lose what's in their bank accounts. I know some of the bonds are held by Irish institutions/the state but paying money back to ourselves or not paying it costs us the same amount.

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

Except that Anglo has failed utterly, senior bondholders in this situation are meant to divvy up what's left (nothing) and move on. There are no real deposits in Anglo so nobody will lose what's in their bank accounts. I know some of the bonds are held by Irish institutions/the state but paying money back to ourselves or not paying it costs us the same amount.

And if the situation was as simple as that I'd agree with you.

The problem is that if we burn bondholders, we open up the entire Irish loan market (not just the banks, but also the government, business & taxpayers) to higher costs all round.

Think about it for a second - you loan one of your friends €200 on condition that you get it back in 3 weeks. He/She struggles and it takes 5 weeks. The next time you get half it back.

Another friend asks for few bob to tide them over till payday - you're less likely to give it and more likely to ask for some extra incentive to take on the risk.

Do you really think that the markets don't react the same way, when that's essentially what they've been doing for the past 4-5 years now?

biko

Hello world wrote: »

I also suggest you learn to read!!

Civility please

ben.schlomo

Hello world wrote: »

Omfg! BB code is the code used on bulletin boards to format the text
I'm saying if everyone who used boards managed to ****up the quotes function like you continuously manage to do, no one would be able to tell who was saying what unless they read the thread from page 1. I also suggest you learn to read!!

First time i'll agree with Irishgoatman on something but you really need to drop it, its got nowt to do with the general discussion its just pedantic and does you no favours.

squonk

Predalien wrote: »

That doesn't address the statement you made saying people should be denied access to fundamental rights attached to living in a democracy? I know some people always need to attach themselves to a cause (which often clouds rational judgement), that certainly does not mean they aren't right about some things.

Others always wish to dismiss any protest no matter the issues involved. It is not just scroungers protesting against the continued bail out of Anglo, during our general election the people voted overwhelmingly in favour of Fine Gael/Labour, both of whom made movements and statements that indicated they would not continue the bondholder madness. They promised they would find another solution. They have gone back on this, denying the will of the electorate.

So what's sitting in a tent in Eyre Square in a group with disparate views going to do about it? Party up or shut up IMHO. I don't agree with many government policies but to gain traction I need to get some like minded individuals together with myself to form a party and get elected and use my mandate to get the policies changed.

Predalien

antoobrien wrote: »

And if the situation was as simple as that I'd agree with you.

The problem is that if we burn bondholders, we open up the entire Irish loan market (not just the banks, but also the government, business & taxpayers) to higher costs all round.

Think about it for a second - you loan one of your friends €200 on condition that you get it back in 3 weeks. He/She struggles and it takes 5 weeks. The next time you get half it back.

Another friend asks for few bob to tide them over till payday - you're less likely to give it and more likely to ask for some extra incentive to take on the risk.

Do you really think that the markets don't react the same way, when that's essentially what they've been doing for the past 4-5 years now?

But if we reduce our debt by not paying off debts incurred by Anglo, that makes our ability to pay off future borrowing better, something the markets will recognise. Our borrowing rate spiked at points where the government couldn't put an accurate figure on the cost of the bank bail out, nobody wanted to lend to a country that didn't know how much it already owed, which is fair enough. Iceland decided not to pay off bank debts, they allowed the normal rules to be applied to failed banks and have been able to go back to the markets, our current policy guarantees the need for a second bailout, because of government policy there is no room for growth which makes market rates (even if they came down to supposedly affordable rates) far too high for us to return to the markets in the lifetime of this government.

antoobrien

squonk wrote: »

So what's sitting in a tent in Eyre Square in a group with disparate views going to do about it? Party up or shut up IMHO. I don't agree with many government policies but to gain traction I need to get some like minded individuals together with myself to form a party and get elected and use my mandate to get the policies changed.

Oh goody policies.

Oh wait there's none here.

Any chance of sharing?

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

But if we reduce our debt by not paying off debts incurred by Anglo, that makes our ability to pay off future borrowing better, something the markets will recognise. Our borrowing rate spiked at points where the government couldn't put an accurate figure on the cost of the bank bail out, nobody wanted to lend to a country that didn't know how much it already owed, which is fair enough. Iceland decided not to pay off bank debts, they allowed the normal rules to be applied to failed banks and have been able to go back to the markets, our current policy guarantees the need for a second bailout, because of government policy there is no room for growth which makes market rates (even if they came down to supposedly affordable rates) far too high for us to return to the markets in the lifetime of this government.

Iceland are paying almost 10% for their troubles and have reached targets that we can only dream about - regardless of what we do or don't do with banks after all there's a 14 billion + hole in the exchequer before we start looking at the banks.

So if we started burning bondholders - what would happen. Iceland were also frozen out of the bond markets as well (at those price still should be) when they started burning.

That's what will happen, except this time the EU/IMF won't loan us money to pay for the nurses, guards, children's allowance etc.

I wonder where we'll find the 20 or so billion we'll need (a guess considering the the hit to the tax base of cutting spending by about 1/3 in a single belt) when that happens.

Predalien

Predalien wrote: »

Except that Anglo has failed utterly, senior bondholders in this situation are meant to divvy up what's left (nothing) and move on. There are no real deposits in Anglo so nobody will lose what's in their bank accounts. I know some of the bonds are held by Irish institutions/the state but paying money back to ourselves or not paying it costs us the same amount.

If I were a senior bond holder (ie a pension fund manager, corporate treasurer, wealthy individual, credit union or whatever) and the above was done I would be suing the current government.

What deposits there were were transferred by the last government to AIB.

The only way to determine what would have been available to anyone would have been to liquidate the bank in the summer of 2008 freezing deposits and calling in all debts seeing what it could collect.

http://www.ibrc.ie/About_us/Financial_information/Archived_reports/Annual_Report_2007.pdf
For the record Anglo's primary sources of funding at the end of 2007 were:
deposits from banks €7,601,000,000
customer deposits €52,686,000,000
debt securities (senior bonds) €23,588,000,000
subordinated liabilities (including subordinated bonds) €5,274,000,000

As far as I know senior bondholders and depositors rank the same under Irish law. To burn them you would have to burn depositors.

FreudianSlippers

biko wrote: »

I see that the donations is the latest anti-protesters angle,

Would it be conversely fair to suggest this post is from a pro-protester angle?

but I hope we can keep from implying something untoward is going on.

There have been verbal claims from OG members in this thread and in politics that there is a possibility that some donations may not have been properly appropriated. This rumour had spread rather dramatically in the last week and, according to posters here, when asked about the intake of funds and how they are appropriated various levels of confusion, hostility or genuine answers were given.

The implication exists that while it is not a view of the movement as a whole, there are questions surrounding the possibility of mismanagement of funds (whether purposive or otherwise) which has given rise to the question of how much OG receives in donations, how these are recorded and how they are spent.

Sure, I understand you think there should be more donation transparency but tbh if you give to Santa Strike Force (boards own charity) do you know where the money is going?

While I've never checked, I'm sure boards is aware that it is an offence under section 41 of The Charities Act 2009 for an unregistered charitable organisation to carry on activities within the State. Furthermore, pursuant to section 47 they have a duty to keep proper books of account, give annual statements (s48), annual reports (s52) and allow for public inspection of same without charge in Irish and English (s54).

This act would arguably apply to Occupy as well, especially where they are actively raising money for themselves

Or if you give to Concern etc do you know how much of your money actually makes it to Africa?

Yes: http://www.concern.net/sites/concern.net/files/documents/concern-annual-report-web-2010.pdf

If you give to a political party they don't have to declare anything below 5K. Do you know how the money is put to use?

That's entirely different, occupy is specifically not a political party.

No, because you believe in the idea and let the people in charge decide how to spend it.

That's not the mantra behind the occupy movement though, is it?

From howtooccupy.org:

Crowd-funding
To get this going we need your help! Donate whatever you can, even a little amount can help. We will be absolutely transparent with everything we recieve or spend using an open source accounting tool. We will also provide scans of receipts whenever possible. Thank you for your help, we are looking forward to complete our first project so we can present everyone with the results!

I'm just wondering at this level what OG has to hide? It would appear to me, and to other posters here too, that it is the height of hypocrisy to preach about transparency and accountability on one hand, and on the other turn around and say that the public are not entitled to see their receive and/or spend.



Further, I just want to clarify that I was not at all attempting to break the charter by

Calling the occupy members names (crusties, hippies, losers) or trying to belittle them

I don't believe any of that to be true and I know that many of them are out there trying to do what they think is right. I was only attempting to have discourse with the poster "hippygran" and my comments or statements for which I received a 1 day ban were only directed at her and not to the occupy movement as a whole. I sincerely apologise to anyone who mistook my comment to a singular poster as being directed towards the movement as a whole or any members of the movement who do not self-identify in the same way as poster "hippygran".

I have genuine questions which I have asked in this thread (most unrelated to donations despite what may appear in the alternative) I would be glad to discuss these matters with other OG/ODS/etc. members as I already have with "hippygran". I am genuinely interested to know what the alternative is to EU/IMF funding as well as the other questions I asked about the Freeman pseudo-law being preached by OG on their official Facebook account.

FreudianSlippers

Irishgoatman wrote: »

I'll just make one more comment with regard to donations that the O.G. receive. And I'm going to repeat myself.

In my opinion, if you donate then yes I believe you have a right to know where the money is going.
They, as far as I know, are not a club or registered organisation so there is no legal reason why they should give out this information to the general public.
If you don't donate then it is none of your business unless the people at the camp want to tell you.

I already offered to donate if the records were given to me. I'm in Dublin and I can't go down there, but I would post/paypal money in exchange for the records. I presume €1 is enough of a donation?

FreudianSlippers

Predalien wrote: »

That doesn't address the statement you made saying people should be denied access to fundamental rights attached to living in a democracy? I know some people always need to attach themselves to a cause (which often clouds rational judgement), that certainly does not mean they aren't right about some things.

Others always wish to dismiss any protest no matter the issues involved. It is not just scroungers protesting against the continued bail out of Anglo, during our general election the people voted overwhelmingly in favour of Fine Gael/Labour, both of whom made movements and statements that indicated they would not continue the bondholder madness. They promised they would find another solution. They have gone back on this, denying the will of the electorate.

Just out of curiosity, what if there is no other solution. The ECB has made it clear that they are not willing to discuss giving senior bondholders a "haircut" advancing the "contagion" argument. Not saying I necessarily agree with the ECB stance on this (and it is not in our memorandum of understanding with them) but it could influence their decision to continue funding us at a low interest rate.

We are still unable to return to the markets. So I ask, what if we cannot burn the bondholders and why would we burn them when we are also senior bondholders? We own €30billion of what used to be called Anglo after all.

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

If I were a senior bond holder (ie a pension fund manager, corporate treasurer, wealthy individual, credit union or whatever) and the above was done I would be suing the current government.

What deposits there were were transferred by the last government to AIB.

The only way to determine what would have been available to anyone would have been to liquidate the bank in the summer of 2008 freezing deposits and calling in all debts seeing what it could collect.

I made this very point in another thread. The State may have made a fraudulent conveyance under the Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 by transferring saleable assets to AIB.