Anglo Trial - Read Mod Warning in First post

JRant

ScumLord wrote: »

I assume your talking about my post, it's hard to tell because you're using my words out of context and putting a different meaning on them. I never said they should get off, I just said I can see the judges point, these guys checked with many authorities including our government and were told everything they were doing was above board.

As someone on Newstalk put it, if your boss told you to do something and you checked with an international institution that you were doing it correctly and even the government came in and told you everything was legal. Then a few years later the government came back and told you what you did was actually illegal despite our advice and now we're sending you to jail, would that be fair?

It's like giving out to the guy working behind the counter at subway that your roll has halal meat in it.

That's why we have seperation of powers in this country. It shouldn't matter one jot what a government offical told you as it's up to the judiciary to decide what's legal and what's not.

Plenty of people have gone to jail for just following orders. In the eyes of the law you and you alone are responsible for your actions.

Also, getting legal advice is just that, advice and nothing more. 2 different solicitors could and often do have completely different opinions on the same matter, depending on who's paying them.

Amirani

My name is URL wrote: »

Obviously I meant '63.

Thanks for addressing all the other points, though

I never disagreed with you? I agree that the men in question broke the law. What I don't understand is why the public spotlight is so much on them instead of the regulator.

hatrickpatrick

Diego Simeone wrote: »

I never disagreed with you? I agree that the men in question broke the law. What I don't understand is why the public spotlight is so much on them instead of the regulator.

The regulator allowed the law breaking to happen, these men actually broke the law. The regulator's crime was a crime of inaction, which while awful, is nowhere near as bad as willfully breaking the law.

If I see two lads about to murder someone and I egg them on, I'm an absolute gobsh!te and an accessory to the murder. But my crime is nowhere near as bad as the murder itself.

Amirani

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The regulator allowed the law breaking to happen, these men actually broke the law. The regulator's crime was a crime of inaction, which while awful, is nowhere near as bad as willfully breaking the law.

If I see two lads about to murder someone and I egg them on, I'm an absolute gobsh!te and an accessory to the murder. But my crime is nowhere near as bad as the murder itself.

That's not really what happened in my understanding. From what I've gathered, they consulted with the regulator about what they intended to do and the regulator gave it the green light. That's not inaction.

Barely There

smurgen wrote: »

I never said that. I said the actions of people like these executives induced the bank guarantee.drumm and co wanted the government to have enough skin in the game so that they'd go along with almost anything they told them.no need to resort to personal abuse either.you sound very angry.May I recommend a lie down perhaps?

You do realise people can see what you actually said?

You came out with populist guff such as

smurgen wrote: »

I think they have damaged society and therefore I'd like to see them removed from society for an extended period.

and

smurgen wrote: »

seeing them in prison would be revenge

along with

smurgen wrote: »

I think they should be given long prison sentences and all of their assets seized. I see no reason why these two shudln't have been made an example of.

with forays into tabloid sh;te-speak like

smurgen wrote: »

their actions and the actions of their colleagues induced the state into providing a bank bailout which lead to to cuts to vital services. this undoubletable lead to deaths along the way.

JRant

Barely There wrote: »

You do realise people can see what you actually said?

You came out with populist guff such as



and




along with





with forays into tabloid sh;te-speak like

If your going to occupy the moral high ground it's best not to start insulting people's qualifications. Tokens out of a cereal box indeed.

Barely There

JRant wrote: »

If your going to occupy the moral high ground it's best not to start insulting people's qualifications. Tokens out of a cereal box indeed.

I'm sure his degree in spoofonomics is very well recognised.

10000maniacs

Phoebas wrote: »

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

Here's the problem in a nutshell. Nobody will ever be convicted of a serious crime regarding Anglo, FNB, the other banks and the regulators.
What is the price of this democracy? €75 Billion and the rest. That's the price of democracy.
That price is too high for the Irish people to pay.
I am not advocating that the bullet needs to be returned to Irish politics, but something drastic needs to be done. Otherwise the sneering images of Neary, Finglelton and Fitzpatrick will haunt empty high streets and dole queues in Ireland for a very long time.

Dan_Solo

Barely There wrote: »

You came out with populist guff such as

Just because something is popular doesn't automatically mean it's populist. Is air and water populist?

Barely There

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Just because something is popular doesn't automatically mean it's populist. Is air and water populist?

I think I know the difference between populist and popular - but thanks for the English lesson.

Maybe you'd be better trying to teach some other posters basic economics or the difference between debt and deficit?

Dan_Solo

Barely There wrote: »

I think I know the difference between populist and popular - but thanks for the English lesson.

OK so, tell me why removing these bankers from society for an extended period (one of the proposals you moaned about) would be populist instead of just plain old popular.

Barely There

Dan_Solo wrote: »

OK so, tell me why removing these bankers from society for an extended period (one of the proposals you moaned about) would be populist instead of just plain old popular.

Tell me why you think they should be removed from society, when a Judge who sat through all the available evidence didn't deem it appropriate?

Dan_Solo

Barely There wrote: »

Tell me why you think they should be removed from society, when a Judge who sat through all the available evidence didn't deem it appropriate?

Because the judge was wrong to basically absolve these thieves of their crimes. Excuse me for having an opinion.
So you think everything anybody in power did in the history of mankind was correct and just? Deferential lad aren't you?

PS: You seem to have forgotten why jailing these guys would be "populist" instead of just "popular". Want another chance?

Holsten

He judge was wrong. The guy with years of experience and the full facts of the case was wrong.. Yeah sure.

Nothing to be gained at all by jailing them so he didn't.

Dan_Solo

Holsten wrote: »

He judge was wrong. The guy with years of experience and the full facts of the case was wrong.. Yeah sure.

Nothing to be gained at all by jailing them so he didn't.

Why jail anybody then?

sillyoulfool

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The regulator allowed the law breaking to happen, these men actually broke the law. The regulator's crime was a crime of inaction, which while awful, is nowhere near as bad as willfully breaking the law.

If I see two lads about to murder someone and I egg them on, I'm an absolute gobsh!te and an accessory to the murder. But my crime is nowhere near as bad as the murder itself.

But if the regulator said it was fine and dandy and Ormsby, Matherson and Prentice (their lawyers) advised them and others that it was legal, then the question arises did these two men wilfully break the law? Wilfully would indicate that they knew full well they were breaking the law, the evidence indicates that was not the case at all.

Dan_Solo

sillyoulfool wrote: »

But if the regulator said it was fine and dandy and Ormsby, Matherson and Prentice (their lawyers) advised them and others that it was legal, then the question arises did these two men wilfully break the law? Wilfully would indicate that they knew full well they were breaking the law, the evidence indicates that was not the case at all.

So? If you don't know a law you can't be convicted of it? Is that in our statutes somewhere?

Phoebas

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So? If you don't know a law you can't be convicted of it? Is that in our statutes somewhere?

Some laws are like that but not this one, and they were convicted.
But the judge can take into account that they didn't wilfully break the law when sentencing, and that's what happened here.

smurgen

Barely There wrote: »

I'm sure his degree in spoofonomics is very well recognised.

My degree in finance and masters in business economics have both been well recognized to date,I've worked in the funds industry in Ireland,Switzerland and London.one thing I've learned in my short career to date is not to sign off on things I dont understand.I also always make sure to email company compliance officers and have emails archived and printed off when making decisions as evidence should anything go wrong.I'm only a minow and I know to do this.thats why I find it very hard to believe these guys didn't know exactly what they were doing. Now I'll ask again what are your qualifications that you are so sure of the judges decision?

Barely There

smurgen wrote: »

My degree in finance and masters in business economics have both been well recognized to date,I've worked in the funds industry in Ireland,Switzerland and London.one thing I've learned in my short career to date is not to sign off on things I dont understand.I also always make sure to email company compliance officers and have emails archived and printed off when making decisions as evidence should anything go wrong.I'm only a minow and I know to do this.thats why I find it very hard to believe these guys didn't know exactly what they were doing. Now I'll ask again what are your qualifications that you are so sure of the judges decision?

The burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of the Judge's decision rests with you - seeing as you're the one who disagrees with it - it's hardly up to me to prove he was right - or have you a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works?

So far all I've heard from you is populist, mouth-breather opinion, lacking any kind of logical and coherent argument, - honestly I think you would be more suited to the Adrian Kennedy show - perhaps you'd be more comfortable hanging out in such a forum?

Dan_Solo

Barely There wrote: »

The burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of the Judge's decision rests with you - seeing as you're the one who disagrees with it - it's hardly up to me to prove he was right - or have you a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works?

So far all I've heard from you is populist, mouth-breather opinion, lacking any kind of logical and coherent argument, - honestly I think you would be more suited to the Adrian Kennedy show - perhaps you'd be more comfortable hanging out in such a forum?

Third time lucky? Why would jailing these crooks be "populist" instead of "popular"?
And again, every judge in history has been right, because, you know, otherwise they wouldn't be judges...

steddyeddy

Some people on Boards are of the opinion that if the majority of people want it it's wrong. Popular opinion doesn't mean wrong.

Barely There

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Third time lucky? Why would jailing these crooks be "populist" instead of "popular"?

Jaysus! Semantic-Boy, it's possible it could be both - doesn't mean it's right or wrong.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

again, every judge in history has been right, because, you know, otherwise they wouldn't be judges...

Supply the evidence on Judges decisions which you consider to be incorrect and I'll give you my opinion of them.
In this particular case you've supplied the square root of fcuk-all to back up your opinion.

Dan_Solo

Barely There wrote: »

Jaysus! Semantic-Boy, it's possible it could be both - doesn't mean it's right or wrong.



Supply the evidence on Judges decisions which you consider to be incorrect and I'll give you my opinion of them.
In this particular case you've supplied the square root of fcuk-all to back up your opinion.

And you've provided fcuk all opinion of your own, if you even have one.
Could be both... hahaha. Walloped.

steddyeddy

Barely There wrote: »

Jaysus! Semantic-Boy, it's possible it could be both - doesn't mean it's right or wrong.



Supply the evidence on Judges decisions which you consider to be incorrect and I'll give you my opinion of them.
In this particular case you've supplied the square root of fcuk-all to back up your opinion.

He deemed a man should spend 6 years in jail for mislabelling a food for tax reasons. Simple as.

Capt'n Midnight

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Only serious criminal offences should have jail time.

We really should have victim impact statements on stuff like this.

€450,000,000 is a big hole in the economy the knock on effects aren't nice. This wasn't victimless crime since it affected most of us in some way.

Bottom line less HSE funding , people cutting back on health insurance and fuel. It's probable that there was a slight increase in the mortality rate because of this.

Dan_Solo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We really should have victim impact statements on stuff like this.

€450,000,000 is a big hole in the economy the knock on effects aren't nice. This wasn't victimless crime since it affected most of us in some way.

Bottom line less HSE funding , people cutting back on health insurance and fuel. It's probable that there was a slight increase in the mortality rate because of this.

This is what the corrupt banker supporters just don't get. When you steal public money people die.

Valetta

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This is what the corrupt banker supporters just don't get. When you steal public money people die.

What money did these two men steal?

EazyD

Barely There wrote: »

I'm sure his degree in spoofonomics is very well recognised.

Antagonism and a propensity to use personal dig's in a discussion is a very ugly trait. You can contribute without engaging in such baseless childish nonsense. Grow up

renegademaster

Valetta wrote: »

What money did these two men steal?

so it was monopoly money they were playing with was it?

Dan_Solo

Valetta wrote: »

What money did these two men steal?

They stole money from investors when they benefited from an illegal financial instrument.

Valetta

renegademaster wrote: »

so it was monopoly money they were playing with was it?

I take it you can't answer the question, then?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

They stole money from investors when they benefited from an illegal financial instrument.

They didn't steal any money from investers, and as far as I am aware they didn't benefit from any "illegal financial instrument", whatever that is.

Dan_Solo

Valetta wrote: »

They didn't steal any money from investers, and as far as I am aware they didn't benefit from any "illegal financial instrument", whatever that is.

If you don't know or don't care that buying your own shares to keep your stock price up (with the gains you get for that) is illegal then there isn't really much point talking to you about this.

Valetta

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If you don't know or don't care that buying your own shares to keep your stock price up (with the gains you get for that) is illegal then there isn't really much point talking to you about this.

Can you show that the share price increased, or even stayed the same, as a result of these loans being made?

Because as far as I am aware the plan failed spectacularly and the two men made nothing out of it.

marienbad

Valetta wrote: »

Can you show that the share price increased, or even stayed the same, as a result of these loans being made?

Because as far as I am aware the plan failed spectacularly and the two men made nothing out of it.

If you break into a bank machine and it is empty you are still guilty of a crime

Dan_Solo

Valetta wrote: »

Can you show that the share price increased, or even stayed the same, as a result of these loans being made?

Because as far as I am aware the plan failed spectacularly and the two men made nothing out of it.

So attempted crime isn't a crime at all now? Must have missed that minor change to the law of the land myself.

Valetta

marienbad wrote: »

If you break into a bank machine and it is empty you are still guilty of a crime

Of course, and they were found guilty.

The point was made above that they stole public money, which is incorrect.

Valetta

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So attempted crime isn't a crime at all now? Must have missed that minor change to the law of the land myself.

Where did I say that?

Of course it's a crime and they were tried and found guilty.

Dan_Solo

Valetta wrote: »

Where did I say that?

Of course it's a crime and they were tried and found guilty.

You claimed the share price needed to increase for it to be a crime, which was their illegal intention whether it worked or not.
Point about the public money taken, though it eventually did cost many billions in public money.

Valetta

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You claimed the share price needed to increase for it to be a crime, which was their illegal intention whether it worked or not.
Point about the public money taken, though it eventually did cost many billions in public money.

I never claimed any such thing.

Dan_Solo

Er, right here?

Valetta wrote: »

Can you show that the share price increased, or even stayed the same, as a result of these loans being made?

Because as far as I am aware the plan failed spectacularly and the two men made nothing out of it.

Valetta

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Er, right here?

I never claimed it wasn't a crime.

You just imagined that bit.

Dan_Solo

Valetta wrote: »

I never claimed it wasn't a crime.

You just imagined that bit.

So you agreed it was a crime and just responded with that stuff about the share price not actually going up to shoot the breeze. OK.

Bubbaclaus

I think this post from a previous poster summed it up well

"if your boss told you to do something and you checked with an international institution that you were doing it correctly and even the government came in and told you everything was legal. Then a few years later the government came back and told you what you did was actually illegal despite our advice and now we're sending you to jail, would that be fair?"

hatrickpatrick

To those suggesting that the lack of a jail sentence is fair and just here, let's put it in perspective:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/more-than-400-people-jailed-for-not-paying-tv-licence-last-year-629312.html

More than 400 people jailed for not paying TV licence last year

Thursday, May 01, 2014 - 01:00 PM

The number of people jailed for failing to pay their TV licence increased by more than 50% last year.
A total of 411 people were sent to prison for the offence in 2013, compared to 272 for 2012.
Six years ago, just 49 people were jailed.

Brendan Hennessy from St Vincent De Paul's Social Policy believes the punishment is too harsh for the crime.
“People on low income need payment plans and so on that make things like a TV licence affordable, even it’s over a longer term”
“Government needs to recognise the vulnerability of so many people who, since the recession, have found themselves in a situation that was not of their making, who would like to do their best, but often can’t.”

One rule for the establishment, etc. :mad:

Valetta

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To those suggesting that the lack of a jail sentence is fair and just here, let's put it in perspective:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/more-than-400-people-jailed-for-not-paying-tv-licence-last-year-629312.html



One rule for the establishment, etc. :mad:

Does it really need to be pointed out that these people did not go to jail for not paying their TV licenses.

They went to jail for failing to comply with a court order, which is a very serious offence.

marienbad

Valetta wrote: »

Does it really need to be pointed out that these people did not go to jail for not paying their TV licenses.

They went to jail for failing to comply with a court order, which is a very serious offence.

and what these two did isn't ?

steamengine

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To those suggesting that the lack of a jail sentence is fair and just here, let's put it in perspective:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/more-than-400-people-jailed-for-not-paying-tv-licence-last-year-629312.html



One rule for the establishment, etc. :mad:

Looks like there's 3 rules :-

1 - get off Scot free
2 - slap on the wrist
3 - full rigour of the law

darkpagandeath

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I think this post from a previous poster summed it up well

"if your boss told you to do something and you checked with an international institution that you were doing it correctly and even the government came in and told you everything was legal. Then a few years later the government came back and told you what you did was actually illegal despite our advice and now we're sending you to jail, would that be fair?"

I think you will find they said it does not seem to be illegal totally different The regulator gave no other information than a quick Google could have shown. And again the solicitor says he was never asked about the maple 10 so gave no positive legal advice on that.

Bubbaclaus

Valetta wrote: »

Does it really need to be pointed out that these people did not go to jail for not paying their TV licenses.

They went to jail for failing to comply with a court order, which is a very serious offence.

This. A million times over.

People bringing up TV licences make me cringe. Nobody has ever been jailed for not paying their tv licence in the history of the state. The worst punishment ever received for not paying your tv licence was a fine.

Now, not paying a court ordered fine? That's a very serious offence. If you're not going to treat the courts with respect then what else are you liable to do?