Anglo Trial - Read Mod Warning in First post

steddyeddy

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Would you not rather see them out cutting the grass and picking up dog poo in the Phoenix Park? And it wouldn't even cost you any tax money, they'd be paying for the privilege via fines.

Sending people like this to prison doesn't really help anyone. It makes you feel like you've got some sort of revenge, but you haven't really and you never will.

I would rather see them in debt for the monetary damage of their actions to be honest.

smurgen

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would rather see them in debt for the monetary damage of their actions to be honest.

I see no reason why their assets shouldn't be seized and a prison sentence also be dished out.the judge sent out the message today that financial crime in Ireland is not to be taken seriously and it only carries a lenient sentence. He has in my opinion further undermined Ireland's reputation in the international financial community.as a normal worker who follows the rules to a t, payes all my taxes and never once has broken the law I cannot tell you how disheartening I find all of this.as someone who works in finance all this tells me is that I shall bend the rules as far as I can as financially I will be rewarded over the course of my career and in the very unlikely event that I overstep the mark and get caught that i shouldn't worry,the consequences won't mean cell time.

steddyeddy

smurgen wrote: »

I see no reason why their assets shouldn't be seized and a prison sentence also be dished out.the judge sent out the message today that financial crime in Ireland is not serious and it only carries a lenient sentence. He has in my opinion further undermined Ireland's reputation in the international financial community.

That's the meaning I took from his decision anyway. Large scale financial crime is not serious if you're of a certain socio economic group. Garlic man slightly lower on the scale so he can go to prison.

William F

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's the meaning I took from his decision anyway. Large scale financial crime is not serious if you're of a certain socio economic group. Garlic man slightly lower on the scale so he can go to prison.

Garlic guy got what he deserved. He pocketed money that he wasn't entitled to.

From what I gather, the same level of scumbaggery isn't evident in this trial but that's just from what I heard. It's necessary ti review all the facts before coming to a conclusion.

brandon_flowers

brandon_flowers wrote: »

What pisses me off more is that Bertie Ahern has ****ed off, Brian Cowen has ****ed off, Patrick Neary has ****ed off and several more have ****ed off into the sunset with loads of money, pensions etc and not one thing will ever be done about it.

I would be surprised if Neary could regulate hot and cold water tbh.

Seems a judge and I have once shared the same opinion. Neary wasn't even in the pocket of Anglo. If they had bribed him it would look better.

marienbad

William F wrote: »

Garlic guy got what he deserved. He pocketed money that he wasn't entitled to.

From what I gather, the same level of scumbaggery isn't evident in this trial but that's just from what I heard. It's necessary ti review all the facts before coming to a conclusion.

The jury did review all the facts and came to a conclusion. that should have been enough.

whatsername42

Why is the government not putting plans in place for drumm's extradition? Is he, like the others going to get away with it?

Woodville56

William F wrote: »

Garlic guy got what he deserved. He pocketed money that he wasn't entitled to.

From what I gather, the same level of scumbaggery isn't evident in this trial but that's just from what I heard. It's necessary ti review all the facts before coming to a conclusion.

Question: which of the 2 crimes did more harm to Irish society and the Irish taxpayer - tax avoidance on imported garlic or the near bankruptcy of the state and all that followed from the Anglo corruption, and do the sentences imposed for each reflect proportionately the loss to the State arising from both crimes ? QED ?

Phoebas

Woodville56 wrote: »

Question: which of the 2 crimes did more harm to Irish society and the Irish taxpayer - tax avoidance on imported garlic or the near bankruptcy of the state and all that followed from the Anglo corruption, and do the sentences imposed for each reflect proportionately the loss to the State arising from both crimes ? QED ?

The people convicted yesterday weren't convicted on charges of nearly bankrupting the state.

Phoebas

marienbad wrote: »

The jury did review all the facts and came to a conclusion. that should have been enough.

The jury convicted them and that was enough for the conviction. But the jury have no input into sentencing - that's the job of the judge, who also gets to review all the facts.

force eleven

My dreams of seeing busloads of corrupt banksters and financial gamblers being led away in chains and orange jumpsuits to a maximum security prison in the Deep South, is fading away.

But then, that doesn't happen in Ireland, and never will. Despicable and rotten system we have.

marienbad

Phoebas wrote: »

The jury convicted them and that was enough for the conviction. But the jury have no input into sentencing - that's the job of the judge, who also gets to review all the facts.

The jury reviews all the facts relevant to the case.

Phoebas

marienbad wrote: »

The jury reviews all the facts relevant to the case.

... and it looks like they did a fine job. But they have no role in sentencing.

efb

whatsername42 wrote: »

Why is the government not putting plans in place for drumm's extradition? Is he, like the others going to get away with it?

There needs to be the same laws broken in both states for extradition to take place. ie what he is accused of has to be a crime in the US too- AFAIK- it isn't

Woodville56

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Would you not rather see them out cutting the grass and picking up dog poo in the Phoenix Park? And it wouldn't even cost you any tax money, they'd be paying for the privilege via fines.

Sending people like this to prison doesn't really help anyone. It makes you feel like you've got some sort of revenge, but you haven't really and you never will.

A bit simplistic on my view ! The issue as I see it is one of the punishment fitting the crime. I ask myself which form of punishment will have the most impact (be the most punitive) for the criminals concerned - a few hundred ? hours community service, cutting grass or whatever, or incarceration for a few years. Which would they fear most ? Community service will be a walk in the park for these guys when one thinks of the nature and repercussions of their wrongdoings !

Woodville56

Phoebas wrote: »

The people convicted yesterday weren't convicted on charges of nearly bankrupting the state.

Their corrupt acts certainly contributed significantly to the near bankruptcy of the state - you can dress it up and seek to mitigate their criminality any way you like, fact remains proven that they perverted the operation of company law in this state and we are all paying for the outcome !

y0ssar1an22

lightspeed wrote: »

Im sure they are paying for their own legal costs but are the two of them going to pay for all the legal and admin costs for incurred by the state for all of this show?

Given the length of time this has been ongoing, i reckon that bill would be pretty high.

Is that not how it works? You are found guilty = you pay all the costs?

Highflyer13

Smidge wrote: »

An elderly relative of mine many, many years ago said "If you want to get away with a crime in Ireland you only need two things. The right friends and a pen, not a gun."

People are suffering financially and mentally at the hands of a portion of sociopaths who happen to hold positions of great power and influence in this country.

A crazy thing to say but I am greatly concerned for our future if things don't drastically change. How many lives have these people been indirectly responsible for taking and ruining? Quite a lot you will find and it continues.

10000maniacs

Crime 1: Label your garlic imports as apples:
Sentence 1 Judge 1: 6 years in prison.
Crime 2: Help your company rob the country of €30 Billion:
Sentence 2:Judge 1 Lets see if you are eligible for Community Service.
Priceless.

Woodville56

Was it the same judge ??

10000maniacs

Woodville56 wrote: »

Was it the same judge ??

Yes.

Barely There

Woodville56 wrote: »

Their corrupt acts certainly contributed significantly to the near bankruptcy of the state - you can dress it up and seek to mitigate their criminality any way you like, fact remains proven that they perverted the operation of company law in this state and we are all paying for the outcome !

Their corrupt acts contributed fcuk all to the near bankruptcy of the State.

The State was fcuked by reckless lending/borrowing and the huge increases in Govt spending which were funded by very cyclical tax-take - there were a myriad of other reasons too.

But sure don't let the facts get in the way of your ranting.

Woodville56

would love to hear him explain the rationale for the variation on sentencing between these cases

Woodville56

Barely There wrote: »

Their corrupt acts contributed fcuk all to the near bankruptcy of the State.

The State was fcuked by reckless lending/borrowing and the huge increases in Govt spending which were funded by very cyclical tax-take - there were a myriad of other reasons too.

But sure don't let the facts get in the way of your ranting.

Agree about the reckless lending, but your acquittal of these cowboys criminality as a contributory factor tops my ranting any day - you wouldn't happen to be a buddy of Seanie and the lads perhaps ? Really surprised at the number of apologists for these guys that have come out of the woodwork here since the sentencing ! Definitely at odds with what I'm hearing in public opinion and media since yesterday. But then again I'm just an ordinary pleb, wouldn't have any insight to how the intelligentsia view the world. Most of us though can tell right from wrong, morality from corruption , enuf said !

Barely There

Highflyer13 wrote: »

Maybe the gun needs to be introduced back into Irish politics.

FFS!:mad:

smurgen

Barely There wrote: »

Their corrupt acts contributed fcuk all to the near bankruptcy of the State.

The State was fcuked by reckless lending/borrowing and the huge increases in Govt spending which were funded by very cyclical tax-take - there were a myriad of other reasons too.

But sure don't let the facts get in the way of your ranting.

reckless lending? Like the illegal lending that these guys organised to the Maple 10? The kindness being shown to these takes my breath away.alot of very sympathetic people in here. I personally regard white collar crime as very very serious. And I think those convicted of breaking the law should be given extremly severe sentences.

FamousSeamus

10000maniacs wrote: »

Crime 1: Label your garlic imports as apples:
Sentence 1 Judge 1: 6 years in prison.
Crime 2: Help your company rob the country of €30 Billion:
Sentence 2:Judge 1 Lets see if you are eligible for Community Service.
Priceless.

Hey someone could have eaten those garlic's thinking they were apples and ruined many an apple pie!!! 6 years was soft

Barely There

Woodville56 wrote: »

Agree about the reckless lending, but your acquittal of these cowboys criminality as a contributory factor tops my ranting any day - you wouldn't happen to be a buddy of Seanie and the lads perhaps ? Really surprised at the number of apologists for these guys that have come out of the woodwork here since the sentencing ! Definitely at odds with what I'm hearing in public opinion and media since yesterday.

You said 'significant contributing factor' - simply not true.

take everything

marienbad wrote: »

Ok then, my misunderstanding.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I apologise I misunderstood.

Diego Simeone wrote: »

My fault guys, I should've been clearer.

A historic day in AH.

*wipes eye

Barely There

smurgen wrote: »

reckless lending? Like the illegal lending that these guys organised to the Maple 10? The kindness being shown to these takes my breath away.alot of very sympathetic people in here. I personally regard white collar crime as very very serious. And I think those convicted of breaking the law should be given extremly severe sentences.

I'd prefer to let an independent Judge who has sat through all the evidence decide on an appropriate sentence than allow a 'hang them from the nearest lamppost' mob mentality to prevail.

Woodville56

Barely There wrote: »

You said 'significant contributing factor' - simply not true.

Splitting hairs ! Would you not regard the impact of their criminality as significant in its impact on the taxpayers and financial standing of this country ??
To argue otherwise beggars belief , now matter how you play around with words - you weren't Counsel for the Defence by any chance ??

Barely There

Woodville56 wrote: »

Splitting hairs ! Would you not regard the impact of their criminality as significant in its impact on the taxpayers and financial standing of this country ??
To argue otherwise beggars belief , now matter how you play around with words - you weren't Counsel for the Defence by any chance ??

Not particularly, not compared to all the other contibuting factors.

smurgen

Barely There wrote: »

Not particularly, not compared to all the other contibuting factors.

you're muddying the waters. they we caught out in very illegal financial activity and have damaged the reputation of ireland as a place to do business. the shouldn't be hung, I do not condone violence. I think they should be given long prison sentences and all of their assets seized. Just because others broke the law also doesn't mean they should be given lenient sentences. I see no reason why these two shudln't have been made an example of.

Barely There

smurgen wrote: »

you're muddying the waters. they we caught out in very illegal financial activity and have damaged the reputation of ireland as a place to do business. the shouldn't be hung, I do not condone violence. I think they should be given long prison sentences and all of their assets seized. Just because others broke the law also doesn't mean they should be given lenient sentences. I see no reason why these two shudln't have been made an example of.

Maybe that's because you didn't sit through all the evidence presented at the trial.

JRant

Barely There wrote: »

Their corrupt acts contributed fcuk all to the near bankruptcy of the State.

The State was fcuked by reckless lending/borrowing and the huge increases in Govt spending which were funded by very cyclical tax-take - there were a myriad of other reasons too.

But sure don't let the facts get in the way of your ranting.

Nonsense.

Yes we were running a deficit but it was a very manageable one. Then these yahoo's come along and start pulling numbers out of their arses and lead us directly into the bank bailout.

This is the single biggest disaster in the history of the State. These 2 played a leading role in it with the illegal loans to the Maple 10. Now they get off pretty much scott free.

smurgen

Barely There wrote: »

Maybe that's because you didn't sit through all the evidence presented at the trial.

going on what I've read there's no reason they shouldn't have. Did you sit through all the evidence to make you feel otherwise? You are defending these two rigerously. please explain your position? Legally why shoudln't they have received a prison sentence since they were found GUILTY of serious financial crimes.

Barely There

JRant wrote: »

Nonsense.

Yes we were running a deficit but it was a very manageable one. Then these yahoo's come along and start pulling numbers out of their arses and lead us directly into the bank bailout.

This is the single biggest disaster in the history of the State. These 2 played a leading role in it with the illegal loans to the Maple 10. Now they get off pretty much scott free.

I think your understanding of what they were convicted of, the bank bailout and the budget deficit are all pretty mixed up in your head to be honest.

Barely There

smurgen wrote: »

going on what I've read there's no reason they shouldn't have. Did you sit through all the evidence to make you feel otherwise? You are defending these two rigerously. please explain your position? Legally why shoudln't they have received a prison sentence since they were found GUILTY of serious financial crimes.

Nope - I work.

That's what I'm happy to let an independent judge who has done so decide what's appropriate, rather than random posters on AH who've read some poorly written ****e in the tabloid no doubts.

Woodville56

Barely There wrote: »

I think your understanding of what they were convicted of, the bank

bailout and the budget deficit are all pretty mixed up in your head to be honest.

Convicted being the key word here, and by a jury of our citizens !
1 Are you of the view that the jury were also "pretty mixed up" ?
2 Do you feel their verdict was incorrect also ?
3 If you feel the verdict was correct - what sentence would you deem appropriate if any ?

If you have a direct interest in this case you should declare it and let's level the pitch somewhat - I work also by the way !! Most public reaction I've heard so far is quite incredulous of the outcome in this case - is everyone "mixed up" bar the cognoscenti here who would have us believe that their criminality is petty and of no national or legal significance, as reflected in the community service outcome ?

Woodville56

Barely There wrote: »

Nope - I work.

That's what I'm happy to let an independent judge who has done so decide what's appropriate, rather than random posters on AH who've read some poorly written ****e in the tabloid no doubts.

Oh so now it's the tabloid influenced rabble rousing crowd who are to blame for the indignation at the outcome of the trial ! That's putting everyone in their place ! We should know better than voice our opinions - crime is crime and should be punished accordingly.
And I'm not a tabloid reader either !

Barely There

Woodville56 wrote: »

Convicted being the key word here, and by a jury of our citizens !
1 Are you of the view that the jury were also "pretty mixed up" ?
2 Do you feel their verdict was incorrect also ?
3 If you feel the verdict was correct - what sentence would you deem appropriate if any ?

If you have a direct interest in this case you should declare it and let's level the pitch somewhat - I work also by the way !! Most public reaction I've heard so far is quite incredulous of the outcome in this case - is everyone "mixed up" bar the cognoscenti here who would have us believe that their criminality is petty and of no national or legal significance, as reflected in the community service outcome ?

As a matter of interest do you believe that anyone who diagrees with your 'let's seize all their assets and lock them up for life' viewpoint has a direct interest in the case?

It's obviously impossible for people to find your views incredibly reactive, populist and founded on nothing more than 'what you've read'?

Barely There

Woodville56 wrote: »

Oh so now it's the tabloid influenced rabble rousing crowd who are to blame for the indignation at the outcome of the trial ! That's putting everyone in their place ! We should know better than voice our opinions - crime is crime and should be punished accordingly.
And I'm not a tabloid reader either !

On what basis have you formed the view that it hasn't been in this case?

JRant

Barely There wrote: »

I think your understanding of what they were convicted of, the bank bailout and the budget deficit are all pretty mixed up in your head to be honest.

Not at all.

They were convicted of 10 charges under section 60 pertaining to illegal loans to prop the companies share price up. So they delibrately manipulated the share price and lied about the financial state of the company but in your mind this has no bearing on the bailout.

Woodville56

Barely There wrote: »

As a matter of interest do you believe that anyone who diagrees with your 'let's seize all their assets and lock them up for life' viewpoint'?

Can you point out where I expressed this viewpoint please ??? My postings throughout have been to the effect that in my view the community service sentence was too lenient having regard to the seriousness of the crime and yes, I do feel a custodial sentence was appropriate, not life, not seize their assets - I never suggested that - if you can find where I wrote that please show me, otherwise let's keep it accurate ok ?

renegademaster

Barely There wrote: »

On what basis have you formed the view that it hasn't been in this case?

one lad walked away scot free and his coconspiritors are getting community service. i know protestors who got community service for doing a hell of a lot less than conspiring to give out illegal loans that brought a whole country to it's knees!!

'Barely There', despite your obvious troll account I'd like to ask you one question: Do you think the trial should have gone ahead at all?

Does anyone think the trial should have gone ahead if jail time was never on the cards?

Could we not have just saved the money instead of pissing it into fat prick barrister bank accounts?

Neary's golden handshake was 700k+, and he's pulling in over 100k a year in a pension. Talk about ruined careers being punishment enough? This is a guy whose memories seem to vanish when they contain any notion of illegality - it's like watching an actual mafioso gangster in the dock.

Woodville56

Barely There wrote: »

On what basis have you formed the view that it hasn't been in this case?

You didn't answer my earlier question - in you view : should they have been found not guilty ? If you agree with the guilty verdict what in your view would be an appropriate sentence - let's stop beating about the bush here, where do you stand on these questions and then let's agree to disagree ok ?

JRant

Barely There wrote: »

Nope - I work.

That's what I'm happy to let an independent judge who has done so decide what's appropriate, rather than random posters on AH who've read some poorly written ****e in the tabloid no doubts.

An independent judge who was deemed not fit for purpose in criminal cases and removed at the request of the president of the circuit court. His record of sentencing is bizarre to say the least.

steddyeddy

William F wrote: »

Garlic guy got what he deserved. He pocketed money that he wasn't entitled to.

From what I gather, the same level of scumbaggery isn't evident in this trial but that's just from what I heard. It's necessary ti review all the facts before coming to a conclusion.

Wf. I'm not responding to ypu I'm quoting you. Unfortunately this child like sentiment is all too ingrained in the psyche of a large section of society.

i.e. they don't like the social class of some people and an inferiority complex gives them the impression those up the economic rung are any less criminal.

JRant

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

'Barely There', despite your obvious troll account I'd like to ask you one question: Do you think the trial should have gone ahead at all?

Does anyone think the trial should have gone ahead if jail time was never on the cards?

Could we not have just saved the money instead of pissing it into fat prick barrister bank accounts?

Neary's golden handshake was 700k+, and he's pulling in over 100k a year in a pension. Talk about ruined careers being punishment enough? This is a guy whose memories seem to vanish when they contain any notion of illegality - it's like watching an actual mafioso gangster in the dock.

IMO it was a complete and utter exercise in futility. AGS fannyed around just long enough to make sure a proper case could never be brought against these boyo's.