Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Rally for The Quinn-were you there?
Options
Comments
-
Are you deliberately misunderstanding what I say?
1: It is for the Court to decide how the legality (or otherwise) of the loan affects the status of the assets pledged against it.
Until the Court rules, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, can state with any degree of certainty what assets Anglo had a right to seize.
I've made that point several times, now.
"Probably" isn't acceptable when judging guilt, or innocence.
In fairness that's a very high bar you are setting, we can only comment on what has been heard and reported, awaiting a court judgment to have an opinion is a bit restrictive. Poor Seanie Fitzpatrick if that's the case!2: In your analogy, the son is guilty of fraud by overstating his income.
The wealthy businessman may be guilty of aiding and abetting his son.
That is not remotely similar to a Bank knowingly advancing loans so that a customer can buy shares. That is illegal.
Let me spell it out.
If the son, and father, in your analogy, are guilty of obtaining a loan through false representation, then the Bank hasn't done anything illegal - therefore, the son is liable for his loan, and his father, as guarantor, cannot refuse to pay.
In addition, the son is guilty of a criminal offence (and possibly the father, too, depending on his knowledge of the situation - I haven't stood as guarantor for anyone in that situation, so I'm not familiar with the process).
In the Quinn vs. Anglo situation, the Court must decide whether Anglo advanced the loan illegally.
If they did - then Quinn is not liable for the loan - unless there are circumstances of which we are not aware - such as Quinn giving the Bank false information, for instance.
It is, of course, also possible that both parties are guilty of an offence. We just don't know, yet.
Well Fitzpatrick is up on charges so we'll see what comes up there. If Quinn knowingly took out the loan and knew it was illegal he is as guilty as the bank.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
In fairness that's a very high bar you are setting, we can only comment on what has been heard and reported, awaiting a court judgment to have an opinion is a bit restrictive. Poor Seanie Fitzpatrick if that's the case!
It is a high bar, if people are only expressing opinions.
On the other hand, when the media print statements like "Sean Quinn persuaded Anglo to give him a loan" - and people then go on to accept this statement as if it were proven fact - then the bar has to be raised before people accept the statement as fact.
I have no problem with people expressing opinions - but I get concerned when people repeat what they read in the media, with absolutely no facts to back the statement up.
So, I challenge the statement - not to have a go at the posters concerned, nor to defend either party - but because I want to get to the truth, and I want others to know the truth, too.
Since we're picking up the tab, it's the least we deserve, as far as I am concerned.Well Fitzpatrick is up on charges so we'll see what comes up there. If Quinn knowingly took out the loan and knew it was illegal he is as guilty as the bank.
Agreed. We'll just have to wait and see what (or how much!) information comes to light.0 -
Ok. Spell this out. Change the analogy to the son didn't give false documents, just showed up with his father to the Bank. The only reason why I used that is to show a case where the Bank should have checked up on those documents and done their due diligence. If they had done that, then they would not have given him a loan. Hence they should not have given him the loan. Hence they are not liable.Are you deliberately misunderstanding what I say?
1: It is for the Court to decide how the legality (or otherwise) of the loan affects the status of the assets pledged against it.
Until the Court rules, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, can state with any degree of certainty what assets Anglo had a right to seize.
I've made that point several times, now.
"Probably" isn't acceptable when judging guilt, or innocence.
2: In your analogy, the son is guilty of fraud by overstating his income.
The wealthy businessman may be guilty of aiding and abetting his son.
That is not remotely similar to a Bank knowingly advancing loans so that a customer can buy shares. That is illegal.
Let me spell it out.
If the son, and father, in your analogy, are guilty of obtaining a loan through false representation, then the Bank hasn't done anything illegal - therefore, the son is liable for his loan, and his father, as guarantor, cannot refuse to pay.
In addition, the son is guilty of a criminal offence (and possibly the father, too, depending on his knowledge of the situation - I haven't stood as guarantor for anyone in that situation, so I'm not familiar with the process).
If a credit card company foolishly allows a person to build up a loan and the person can't pay it back, then ultimately that person will not have to pay it back.
You conveniently didn't spell out, or address the issue of the guarantees. Or the fact that the Quinn Group illegally gave Quinn those liens.
Yes, and we will be liable for more money, the more Quinn steals from the companies.In the Quinn vs. Anglo situation, the Court must decide whether Anglo advanced the loan illegally.
If they did - then Quinn is not liable for the loan - unless there are circumstances of which we are not aware - such as Quinn giving the Bank false information, for instance.
It is, of course, also possible that both parties are guilty of an offence. We just don't know, yet.
Unfortunately for Joe Public - we are liable for repaying the money - irrespective of who committed what offence.
Therefore, imo, we are entitled to know the details of how we became liable, and who is responsible, and to what degree.That is what I want to find out. The unvarnished truth, no more, no less! Frankly, I cannot see why you have a problem with that - or the fact that I question inaccuracies that are presented as fact, when we are not yet aware of what the actual facts are.
Quinn owes money. regardless of who else is to blame. His group owes money. They signed over assets and then tried to steal them away. Finding other scapegoats cannot remove that. If there is an armed robbery on your local tesco by 2 masked raiders and the guards catch one of them, his guilt is not lessened by the fact that others were also involved. He can be prosecuted before the guards have even caught the other fella.
As for illegality or otherwise of the loans, show me proof where they came in and put a gun to Quinn's head. The illegality would not mean he doesn't have to hand back what he can, it just means that he can't be held responsible for what he can't hand back. You didn't seem to grasp the salient point I made that if Quinn had got the loans on his own merit, and it were proven that they were illegal, he could probably hand back the shares and walk away (ignoring that he would have also been just as guilty for taking part in the market manipulation scheme). But he foolishly had his group sign assets as collateral. That's tough sh1t. Quinn's "supporters" paint a picture of a completely independent, trusting gentleman who was brought in out of the blue and duped by men he trusted. They ignore that he was merely converting an exposure that he already built up all on his own.
How can you condone the stripping of assets that were signed away as collateral? That is why young Quinn was jailed. For contempt of court in continuing this process after being told not to.
If Quinn had got the loan to buy the shares, and instead decided not to buy them but just put it resting into another account in AIB, do you think he could then rightfully keep the money himself if it were an "illegal loan"? Feel free to spell that one out for me0 -
Ok. Spell this out. Change the analogy to the son didn't give false documents, just showed up with his father to the Bank. The only reason why I used that is to show a case where the Bank should have checked up on those documents and done their due diligence. If they had done that, then they would not have given him a loan. Hence they should not have given him the loan. Hence they are not liable.
If a credit card company foolishly allows a person to build up a loan and the person can't pay it back, then ultimately that person will not have to pay it back.
What? What has it got to do with due diligence?
And how does a mortgage, which is an arrangement between a private individual and a bank, have anything to do with Corporate law?
And what on earth do credit cards have to do with anything?You conveniently didn't spell out, or address the issue of the guarantees. Or the fact that the Quinn Group illegally gave Quinn those liens.
Yes, and we will be liable for more money, the more Quinn steals from the companies.
Why would I address it? For that matter, how can I, or you, or anyone else address it, when the whole thing is the subject of a legal challenge?
I started out by questioning the actual amount that Sean Quinn is legally liable for. That amount remains to be decided by a court of law.
At no stage did I say that Sean Quinn owes nothing, or should be forgiven any debts that he is legally liable for.
The Court will decide how much he owes, and undoubtedly take account of the guarantees given, and the legality, or otherwise, of the liens given by the Quinn group.Quinn owes money. regardless of who else is to blame. His group owes money.
I never disputed that. (except possibly in your imagination?)
What I questioned was the amount he/they owe, and how anyone could possibly stand over a statement like "Sean Quinn persuaded Anglo to give him the loans."
The truth is that no-one, who wasn't present when that loan was taken out, can possibly know whether Sean Quinn persuaded Anglo to give him the loans, or whether Anglo offered Sean Quinn the loans.
That is why there is a court case pending.They signed over assets and then tried to steal them away. Finding other scapegoats cannot remove that. If there is an armed robbery on your local tesco by 2 masked raiders and the guards catch one of them, his guilt is not lessened by the fact that others were also involved. He can be prosecuted before the guards have even caught the other fella.
As for illegality or otherwise of the loans, show me proof where they came in and put a gun to Quinn's head. The illegality would not mean he doesn't have to hand back what he can, it just means that he can't be held responsible for what he can't hand back. You didn't seem to grasp the salient point I made that if Quinn had got the loans on his own merit, and it were proven that they were illegal, he could probably hand back the shares and walk away (ignoring that he would have also been just as guilty for taking part in the market manipulation scheme). But he foolishly had his group sign assets as collateral. That's tough sh1t. Quinn's "supporters" paint a picture of a completely independent, trusting gentleman who was brought in out of the blue and duped by men he trusted. They ignore that he was merely converting an exposure that he already built up all on his own.
How can you condone the stripping of assets that were signed away as collateral? That is why young Quinn was jailed. For contempt of court in continuing this process after being told not to.
If Quinn had got the loan to buy the shares, and instead decided not to buy them but just put it resting into another account in AIB, do you think he could then rightfully keep the money himself if it were an "illegal loan"? Feel free to spell that one out for me
For the last and final time: Show me where I have condoned anything of the sort? And when you can't, stop putting words in my mouth and trying to twist what I say!
You continually give examples that have nothing to do with the legality, or otherwise, of the loan given to Sean Quinn by Anglo.
A prime example is your last example - since if the money were put into an account in AIB, it wouldn't have been used to buy shares in Anglo - which is what made the loan illegal in the first place.
If you can't, or will not, accept that the correct place to determine the facts of how much Sean Quinn/Quinn Group owe is a Court of Law, and not some media "opinions" (to be charitable) - then I really can't help you - and I'm not going to waste my time trying, either.0 -
Sean Quinn's libel threat to banker's girl over tweet
Ireland's once-richest man Sean Quinn threatened to sue the daughter of a senior executive of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC), formerly Anglo Irish Bank, for defamation after she called him "a f***ing c***" when chatting with a friend on a social networking site.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/sean-quinns-libel-threat-to-bankers-girl-over-tweet-3197099.html
One interesting bit:
Unless the girls account comment was given rights so that the public could view it, how he did eventually come across it unless he was looking for anything he could use against Mr Woodhouse, by looking for anything "Woodhouse" related - found his daughters account and went snooping in there!Mr Quinn told Mr Woodhouse that he was "disappointed" about the comment, which he claimed to have come across by chance during routine searches of the internet.
Nice!
Do "routine searches" of the internet throw up everyone's Facebook conversations?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I don't mind them going after Quinn, but when are they going to go after all the other Celtic Tiger gangsters ? He must have threatend to sh it on a few of his own in the golden circle big time, otherwise he would never have been touched.0
-
Ok. Spell this out. Change the analogy to the son didn't give false documents, just showed up with his father to the Bank. The only reason why I used that is to show a case where the Bank should have checked up on those documents and done their due diligence. If they had done that, then they would not have given him a loan. Hence they should not have given him the loan. Hence they are not liable.
If a credit card company foolishly allows a person to build up a loan and the person can't pay it back, then ultimately that person will not have to pay it back.
You conveniently didn't spell out, or address the issue of the guarantees. Or the fact that the Quinn Group illegally gave Quinn those liens.
Yes, and we will be liable for more money, the more Quinn steals from the companies.
Quinn owes money. regardless of who else is to blame. His group owes money. They signed over assets and then tried to steal them away. Finding other scapegoats cannot remove that. If there is an armed robbery on your local tesco by 2 masked raiders and the guards catch one of them, his guilt is not lessened by the fact that others were also involved. He can be prosecuted before the guards have even caught the other fella.
As for illegality or otherwise of the loans, show me proof where they came in and put a gun to Quinn's head. The illegality would not mean he doesn't have to hand back what he can, it just means that he can't be held responsible for what he can't hand back. You didn't seem to grasp the salient point I made that if Quinn had got the loans on his own merit, and it were proven that they were illegal, he could probably hand back the shares and walk away (ignoring that he would have also been just as guilty for taking part in the market manipulation scheme). But he foolishly had his group sign assets as collateral. That's tough sh1t. Quinn's "supporters" paint a picture of a completely independent, trusting gentleman who was brought in out of the blue and duped by men he trusted. They ignore that he was merely converting an exposure that he already built up all on his own.
How can you condone the stripping of assets that were signed away as collateral? That is why young Quinn was jailed. For contempt of court in continuing this process after being told not to.
If Quinn had got the loan to buy the shares, and instead decided not to buy them but just put it resting into another account in AIB, do you think he could then rightfully keep the money himself if it were an "illegal loan"? Feel free to spell that one out for me
By the same token, show me the proof that Quinn put a gun to the head of whoever was in charge of sanctioning the loans at Anglo.
May I reiterate what I said in an earlier post that as far as I am concerned, an astute business man like Sean Quinn is not going to either invest/buy shares/bet(call it what you like) on a bank if it is not for the fact that some of the most reputable people, including a regulator, signed off on the bank being 100% viable and rising. Also, if, as we are led to believe, that Sean Quinn made a proposal that, over a term and with the bank behind him, that he pay back any debt owed to the bank by the Quinn group and this offer was refused. Incidently, the govt. stood over this decision not to accept his offer, as far as I know. Were you, as a taxpayer consulted on this offer and refusal. I certainly was not. Lastly, i would like to say that, I know what Quinn did for the country in terms of employment. Can you tell me what did Anglo did.:mad::mad:0 -
Hi,
Just because I am stating the facts here as I have read them so far and listened to several interviews about this case, does not mean that I support or condone what he has done. But I reckon that if he and his family are going to be dragged through the courts, it is only proper that everyone involved should be held to account. Don't forget, we have already heard that this man offered to pay back every penny over a few years, but his offer was refused. Were you, as a taxpayer, consulted about this offer to pay back all of this money, I know I was'nt.
Regarding my remark where I said that it was a big mistake on his part that he was'nt a bondholder, what I meant by that was, that no matter how much he would have gambled as a bondholder, he would have got his money back. But that is a well known fact, I don't have to tell ya how that works. The last thing I would say is that if he get as fair a shake as Anglo seems to be getting, well, the truth will prevail in the end. So I hope that I made my point a bit clearer. Goodnight, all.
First you need to understand the difference between facts and opinions. Facts never change. You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
What do you mean by everyone else? Everyone that can be prosecuted is being prosecuted. It takes time because these are potentially extremely complex crimes. The reason that Sean Quinn and family are before the courts right now is that UNLIKE Fingleton, Fitzpatrick etc they are engaged in a deliberate scheme to squirrel away assets that belong to the Irish Taxpayer. That is happening right now under the nose of a judge. Hence the aptly named contempt of court proceedings. As Sean has shown contempt for the courts and by extension the state and the people who live in this state.
Second why should you be consulted about his offer? You clearly know nothing about how the finance or insurance world work given your other comments. What would your contribution be? Sure - go on Sean and pay it back?? Despite the regulator determining long before the anglo case that he has essentially taken money from the insurance business to prop up his other business interests.
Finally there is a world of difference between bondholders and someone taking out a CFD. A CFD is a bet in the truest meaning - you are taking a position on the future share price of a business. This is what Sean did. And he did not hedge this position (bet the other way) which is what most normal investors would do to make sure they don't lose their shirt.
A bondholder on the other time places money much like a depositor in a bank for a fixed period of time for a fixed return. For the most part (and this is really important for people like you who seem to think bondholders are evil something or other) are the likes of pension funds, credit unions
Put simply
Unhedged CFD is Gambling
Bonds not Gambling0 -
By the same token, show me the proof that Quinn put a gun to the head of whoever was in charge of sanctioning the loans at Anglo.
May I reiterate what I said in an earlier post that as far as I am concerned, an astute business man like Sean Quinn is not going to either invest/buy shares/bet(call it what you like) on a bank if it is not for the fact that some of the most reputable people, including a regulator, signed off on the bank being 100% viable and rising. Also, if, as we are led to believe, that Sean Quinn made a proposal that, over a term and with the bank behind him, that he pay back any debt owed to the bank by the Quinn group and this offer was refused. Incidently, the govt. stood over this decision not to accept his offer, as far as I know. Were you, as a taxpayer consulted on this offer and refusal. I certainly was not. Lastly, i would like to say that, I know what Quinn did for the country in terms of employment. Can you tell me what did Anglo did.:mad::mad:
From the BBC
"The family had no viable plan to pay back the money
Once the insurance business was taken from family control, their offer to repay the 2.8 billion euros owed went up in smoke.
The fact that their plan relied upon cash from the insurance arm was not reassuring to a regulator who'd found that they had repeatedly broken the rules not to use money from the regulated business to support the rest of the group.
On 7 March 2011 (one month before Anglo took over the rest of the group) the family's lawyers stated clearly in a letter to Anglo that their offer to repay "was made solely in the context of our clients retaining economic control of Quinn Insurance".
The regulator had already ruled that out, it was not a matter within Anglo's control."
As an aside I'll tell you what Anglo did - they created tens of thousands of construction jobs through their loans and many hundreds of highly paid jobs in the bank itself. That justify everything in your book? Off you go to the Sean Fitzpatrick support march now!0 -
Advertisement
-
Will any state law agency ever go after the fucking auditors? And fucking is precisely what they've done to us.
It's unfuckinbelievable that they have escaped so far. I know many of them and they are still on ridiculous salaries driving around in top-of-the-range cars. And they were party to duping the Irish state in a bill that we taxpayers are paying.
It's sickening how comprehensive is the avoidance of criticism of all the auditors who were supposed to check the accounts of Anglo-Irish, Permanent TSB, Irish Nationwide, Quinn, AIB, BofI and all the property companies now in NAMA.
PWC (Quinn Insurance auditors, among others)?, Ernst & Young (Anglo-Irish Bank, among others)? KPMG (AIB, among others)?
Time to attack these smug South Dublin bastards and their clearly undeserved "professional" fees. I look forward to their former school colleagues in Blackrock, St Michael's, Belvedere and the like ruining life-long ties to prosecute them in their adult roles as lawyers and independent auditors. It's a rot. South Dublin and its connections, otherwise known as the powerhouse of the Irish state, is the biggest village in Ireland. Truth.0 -
Nice to see that a criminal....(aka simple man who is the son of a farmer).....is so well supported and that alot of "blind" people seem to be in complete denial the the Quinn empire is all about blatant criminal activity and sticking 2 fingers up to the law and courts.0
-
Nice to see that a criminal....(aka simple man who is the son of a farmer).....is so well supported and that alot of "blind" people seem to be in complete denial the the Quinn empire is all about blatant criminal activity and sticking 2 fingers up to the law and courts.
Sadly the same process or lack of sight seemed to happen around one Mr C. Haughty and possibly others after him.0 -
Nice to see that a criminal....(aka simple man who is the son of a farmer).....is so well supported and that alot of "blind" people seem to be in complete denial the the Quinn empire is all about blatant criminal activity and sticking 2 fingers up to the law and courts.
He's not well supported. He's championed by a small minority of fiksht de road types and individuals who should know better, such as certain members of the clergy and the gah. Either way, I'd term them, not so much blind, as I would parochial idiots.
I remember another son of a farmer, and more ominously, he ran a close second in the last presidential election. That to me is a much stronger indicative of the notion that people in general, are idiots, and common sense is altogether uncommon.0 -
Sadly the same process or lack of sight seemed to happen around one Mr C. Haughty and possibly others after him.
I see that Sean Dunne and his wife are now pulling the same trick that the Quinns have pulled on the courts.:rolleyes::mad::mad:
I see he at it too with the "I know nothing and havent done anything wrong" bullsh!t.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2187204/NAMA-sues-Dunne-stolen-millions-Agency-accuses-broke-developer-fraudulently-passing-assets-wife-Gayle--expos-MoS.html0 -
I see that Sean Dunne and his wife are now pulling the same trick that the Quinns have pulled on the courts.:rolleyes::mad::mad:
They are possibly up to many a thing: http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/5743/p1170750large.jpg
One VERY long report his antics starts off with this: http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6371/p1170751large.jpg
Both articles have more substance at least (for the Indo') than another reporter who likes to just write about unknown but "Notorious" men in bars!0 -
Nice to see that a criminal....(aka simple man who is the son of a farmer).....is so well supported and that alot of "blind" people seem to be in complete denial the the Quinn empire is all about blatant criminal activity and sticking 2 fingers up to the law and courts.
Plus the regulators and all the so-called experts Seanchai mentioned in post 552.
The blind leading the untouchables.0 -
First you need to understand the difference between facts and opinions. Facts never change. You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
What do you mean by everyone else? Everyone that can be prosecuted is being prosecuted. It takes time because these are potentially extremely complex crimes. The reason that Sean Quinn and family are before the courts right now is that UNLIKE Fingleton, Fitzpatrick etc they are engaged in a deliberate scheme to squirrel away assets that belong to the Irish Taxpayer. That is happening right now under the nose of a judge. Hence the aptly named contempt of court proceedings. As Sean has shown contempt for the courts and by extension the state and the people who live in this state.
Second why should you be consulted about his offer? You clearly know nothing about how the finance or insurance world work given your other comments. What would your contribution be? Sure - go on Sean and pay it back?? Despite the regulator determining long before the anglo case that he has essentially taken money from the insurance business to prop up his other business interests.
Finally there is a world of difference between bondholders and someone taking out a CFD. A CFD is a bet in the truest meaning - you are taking a position on the future share price of a business. This is what Sean did. And he did not hedge this position (bet the other way) which is what most normal investors would do to make sure they don't lose their shirt.
A bondholder on the other time places money much like a depositor in a bank for a fixed period of time for a fixed return. For the most part (and this is really important for people like you who seem to think bondholders are evil something or other) are the likes of pension funds, credit unions
Put simply
Unhedged CFD is Gambling
Bonds not GamblingFrom the BBC
"The family had no viable plan to pay back the money
Once the insurance business was taken from family control, their offer to repay the 2.8 billion euros owed went up in smoke.
The fact that their plan relied upon cash from the insurance arm was not reassuring to a regulator who'd found that they had repeatedly broken the rules not to use money from the regulated business to support the rest of the group.
On 7 March 2011 (one month before Anglo took over the rest of the group) the family's lawyers stated clearly in a letter to Anglo that their offer to repay "was made solely in the context of our clients retaining economic control of Quinn Insurance".
The regulator had already ruled that out, it was not a matter within Anglo's control."
As an aside I'll tell you what Anglo did - they created tens of thousands of construction jobs through their loans and many hundreds of highly paid jobs in the bank itself. That justify everything in your book? Off you go to the Sean Fitzpatrick support march now!
I think that you actually believe what you wrote above. Well, I'm here to tell you that Anglo created nothing but misery. Now, I believe the truth will come out in the end, whichever side it comes from.
Here is a piece for you to read. Please just google Who are the Anglo Bondholders the Irish Government wont burn.0 -
I think that you actually believe what you wrote above. Well, I'm here to tell you that Anglo created nothing but misery. Now, I believe the truth will come out in the end, whichever side it comes from.
Here is a piece for you to read. Please just google Who are the Anglo Bondholders the Irish Government wont burn.
Just google it yourself and put it up. Stupid hiding stuff stupidity
...Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
I think that you actually believe what you wrote above. Well, I'm here to tell you that Anglo created nothing but misery. Now, I believe the truth will come out in the end, whichever side it comes from.
Here is a piece for you to read. Please just google Who are the Anglo Bondholders the Irish Government wont burn.
Please tell us what parts are not fact / true?
Please also tell us what you understand to be the difference between a bond and a CFD?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
WTF. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND WHY ARE THEY SUPPORTING THIS CROOK? Yes, I meant to write that in all capitals.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0923/group-raises-2m-to-support-quinns.html0 -
Anonymous donors? Yeah right!0
-
WTF. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND WHY ARE THEY SUPPORTING THIS CROOK? Yes, I meant to write that in all capitals.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0923/group-raises-2m-to-support-quinns.html[/QUOTE]
Maybe, just maybe, they are of the opinion that Anglo is in the wrong.0 -
WTF. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND WHY ARE THEY SUPPORTING THIS CROOK? Yes, I meant to write that in all capitals.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0923/group-raises-2m-to-support-quinns.html[/QUOTE]
Maybe, just maybe, they are of the opinion that Anglo is in the wrong.
Anglo are long gone, Quinn owe money to the state0 -
A fine flock of sheep blinded by the mighty dollar.0
-
Is it too late to reinstate the Boundary Commission and give Cavan back to the crown?0
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement