Sean Fitzpatrick to get off Scott Free

ohnonotgmail

TallGlass wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/donegal-woman-jailed-not-paying-tv-licence-1962677-Feb2015/

The woman was taken by taxi to Mountjoy’s Dóchas Centre, where she was held for three hours before being given a bus ticket home to Donegal.

TallGlass wrote: »

Well chances are if you don't pay your licence you won't pay the fine and then it ends up with you in a cell or holding.

Which stems from the fact you didn't pay the licence fee in the first place, so you can get jailed for it.

if people want to keep repeating the same mistake then i'll keep repeating that they are wrong.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Cyrus wrote: »

i really dont know what to say to you, are you blaming him and him alone for everything that happened during the GFC? thats bizarre

Where did I say I was blaming him and him alone?? This thread is about his acquittal. I think he was one of several corrupt, greedy, dishonest shysters who abused their positions to benefit themselves at the expense of others, and have shown no remorse whatsoever.

Your bewilderment at my remarks is somewhat disingenuous I think.

weldoninhio

TallGlass wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/donegal-woman-jailed-not-paying-tv-licence-1962677-Feb2015/

The woman was taken by taxi to Mountjoy?s D?chas Centre, where she was held for three hours before being given a bus ticket home to Donegal.

was being taken to Mountjoy prison for failure to pay a TV licence fine of ?450

So she was not jailed for not paying her license. She was jailed for refusing to pay a court ordered fine.

weldoninhio

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Hate to rain on your parade but it has happened. More than once. 411 people in 2013 alone.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/411-people-jailed-last-year-for-not-paying-their-tv-licence-30235625.html

Are you really that disengaged from what does be going on? Can't believe you were not aware of this.

Disengaged?? You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Its a clikcbait headline. Show me where in Irish law, anywhere, never mind broadcasting and receiving legislation where the punishment for not having a TV license is jail.

thebaz

more blood boiling fuel - from todays Indo :-

The man in charge of the botched Anglo Irish Bank probe has enjoyed retirement benefits worth almost €590,000 since he retired five years ago.
Former director of corporate enforcement Paul Appleby controversially retired early on an annual pension of €73,000, on top of a €225,000 lump sum - most of it tax free.



Hardly deserved ... putting it mildly (again)

SeamusFX

Cyrus wrote: »

you are conflating two unrelated events, what did you want sean fitzpatrick to go to jail for?

shenanigans

WTF!!!! He's guilty of plenty, try fraud, lying, concealing and destroying evidence, just to name a few. The fact these c's aren't going to jail, yet people who don't have a TV licence do is a complete is disgrace! I don't know if this was a concerted effort, incompetence or a combination, but it's still wrong on so many levels. I'm not condoning the actions or the stupidity of the prosecution, but your pal Seanie is not innocent by no stretch of the imagination.

Cyrus

SeamusFX wrote: »

WTF!!!! He's guilty of plenty, try fraud, lying, concealing and destroying evidence, just to name a few. The fact these c's aren't going to jail, yet people who don't have a TV licence do is a complete is disgrace! I don't know if this was a concerted effort, incompetence or a combination, but it's still wrong on so many levels. I'm not condoning the actions or the stupidity of the prosecution, but your pal Seanie is not innocent by no stretch of the imagination.

jesus the tv licence thing again, did we not address that

i dont know Mr Fitzpatrick so he isnt my pal nor has he been convicted of any crime

TallGlass

weldoninhio wrote: »

was being taken to Mountjoy prison for failure to pay a TV licence fine of ?450

So she was not jailed for not paying her license. She was jailed for refusing to pay a court ordered fine.

Are you even looking what is above your post. The person was held for three hours in a prison and then let out. It's still a prison and still a sentence.

Because she refused to pay her licence in the first place. Or is that bit just going above your head?

knipex

TallGlass wrote: »

Are you even looking what is above your post. The person was held for three hours in a prison and then let out. It's still a prison and still a sentence.

Because she refused to pay her licence in the first place. Or is that bit just going above your head?

She was not jailed for not paying her TV license.

She was jailed for not paying a court imposed fine..

weldoninhio

TallGlass wrote: »

Are you even looking what is above your post. The person was held for three hours in a prison and then let out. It's still a prison and still a sentence.

Because she refused to pay her licence in the first place. Or is that bit just going above your head?

Its not rocket science. She was held in prison for three hours for refusing to pay a court fine.

TallGlass

knipex wrote: »

She was not jailed for not paying her TV license.

She was jailed for not paying a court imposed fine..

weldoninhio wrote: »

Its not rocket science. She was held in prison for three hours for refusing to pay a court fine.

Well it really isn't rocket science, she was held in prison for not paying for a licence, the court didn't randomly just hand down a fine for nothing.

ohnonotgmail

TallGlass wrote: »

Well it really isn't rocket science, she was held in prison for not paying for a licence, the court didn't randomly just hand down a fine for nothing.

you still don't get it. she was held in prison for not paying a fine. the reason for the fine is irrelevant at that stage.

TallGlass

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you still don't get it. she was held in prison for not paying a fine. the reason for the fine is irrelevant at that stage.

No it's very relevant. If you think someone is going to pay a fine after not paying 160€ then it's going to end in one outcome and that's a time in a prison.

Look, you and other posters can take the technical view all day long. People do get sent to prison over not having a TV licence.

ohnonotgmail

TallGlass wrote: »

No it's very relevant. If you think someone is going to pay a fine after not paying 160€ then it's going to end in one outcome and that's a time in a prison.

Look, you and other posters can take the technical view all day long. People do get sent to prison over not having a TV licence.

god forbid somebody sticks to facts instead of posting populist nonsense.

SeamusFX

Cyrus wrote: »

jesus the tv licence thing again, did we not address that

i dont know Mr Fitzpatrick so he isnt my pal nor has he been convicted of any crime

No, you just think you addressed the TV licence analogy, but unfortunately you missed the point. If you don't pay the TV licence you can get a fine and if you refuse to pay or can't pay the fine you can and people have gone to jail! Yet, "your pal" Seanie boy is not going to jail and he's done a lot more damage to the country than someone not paying a measly little fine! Maybe he wasn't convicted of a crime, but that certainly doesn't mean he isn't guilty, look at OJ. Just because our judicial system is incompetent and corrupt doesn't make your pal Seanie innocent!

10000maniacs

Cyrus wrote: »

jesus the tv licence thing again, did we not address that

i dont know Mr Fitzpatrick so he isnt my pal nor has he been convicted of any crime

No you didn't. The fine is for not having a TV license. €450 is a problem for a single mother on welfare. Can you not see this? :eek:
And for the courts to come to a conclusion that non payment of a TV license fine is more serious in the eyes of the courts than an individual hiding a total of €87 million in loans from Anglo Irish Bank just beggars belief.
Our legal system needs a grass roots swamp drainage.

SeamusFX

10000maniacs wrote: »

No you didn't. The fine is for not having a TV license. €450 is a problem for a single mother on welfare. Can you not see this? :eek:
And for the courts to come to a conclusion that non payment of a TV license fine is more serious in the eyes of the courts than an individual hiding a total of €87 million in loans from Anglo Irish Bank just beggars belief.
Our legal system needs a grass roots swamp drainage.

Thanks, but please don't say "drain the swamp", that meaning has been distorted in the US and no longer means what it used to.

Cyrus

SeamusFX wrote: »

No, you just think you addressed the TV licence analogy, but unfortunately you missed the point. If you don't pay the TV licence you can get a fine and if you refuse to pay or can't pay the fine you can and people have gone to jail! Yet, "your pal" Seanie boy is not going to jail and he's done a lot more damage to the country than someone not paying a measly little fine! Maybe he wasn't convicted of a crime, but that certainly doesn't mean he isn't guilty, look at OJ. Just because our judicial system is incompetent and corrupt doesn't make your pal Seanie innocent!

say pal more :pac:

i dont think the tv licence thing can be explained in any simpler terms so i wont bother

Cyrus

10000maniacs wrote: »

No you didn't. The fine is for not having a TV license. ?450 is a problem for a single mother on welfare. Can you not see this? :eek:
And for the courts to come to a conclusion that non payment of a TV license fine is more serious in the eyes of the courts than an individual hiding a total of ?87 million in loans from Anglo Irish Bank just beggars belief.
Our legal system needs a grass roots swamp drainage.

if she cant afford a tv licence then dont get a tv,

if you are fined in court for something make it your business to come to an appropriate payment schedule dont waste the states resources by having them arrest for non compliance

who hid loans from Anglo? do you even know what you are talking about?

10000maniacs

Cyrus wrote: »

if she cant afford a tv licence then dont get a tv,

if you are fined in court for something make it your business to come to an appropriate payment schedule dont waste the states resources by having them arrest for non compliance

who hid loans from Anglo? do you even know what you are talking about?

Read this article before you post again. :rolleyes:
Its either the first or second line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_Irish_Bank_hidden_loans_controversy

Biffo The Bare

Cyrus wrote: »

if she cant afford a tv licence then dont get a tv,

if you are fined in court for something make it your business to come to an appropriate payment schedule dont waste the states resources by having them arrest for non compliance

who hid loans from Anglo? do you even know what you are talking about?

The Anglo Irish Bank hidden loans controversy (also known as the circular transactions controversy) began in Dublin in December 2008 when Seán FitzPatrick, the chairman of Anglo Irish Bank (the state's third-largest bank), admitted he had hidden a total of €87 million in loans from the bank, triggering a series of incidents which led to the eventual nationalisation of Anglo on 21 January 2009. FitzPatrick subsequently resigned his position and was followed within twenty-four hours by the bank's non-executive director, Lar Bradshaw and chief executive, David Drumm.[1] A new chairman of Anglo, Donal O'Connor, was quickly appointed from the board, a move welcomed by the Irish Minister for Finance, Brian Lenihan. A number of investigations have been launched into the reasons behind the three resignations. The Central Bank of Ireland is carrying out a review of the bank's dealings, although its Financial Regulator, Patrick Neary, has also since resigned his position. So too did a number of other chairmen, directors and executives involved with Anglo, Irish Life and Permanent and Irish Nationwide.

_Kaiser_

Watching RTE News and I have to say, it's just hilarious how Brendan Howlin is all over the place lately criticising Government for events that occurred when he was PART of that Government :rolleyes:

Glencarraig

Maisie Uninterested Stepmother wrote: »

I think the ODCE is part of the Dept of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.[/QUOTE

Minister responsible is Mary Mitchell O'Connor......nuff said !!!!

Cyrus

10000maniacs wrote: »

Read this article before you post again. :rolleyes:
Its either the first or second line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_Irish_Bank_hidden_loans_controversy

You've read a wiki and you think it's gospel

I'll reiterate it again

He didn't hide the loans from Anglo they granted the loans to him ! They weren't in the account that doesn't mean the bank weren't aware of them

Also for anyone to say that this led to the downfall of the bank is just barmy

SeamusFX

Cyrus wrote: »

say pal more :pac:

i dont think the tv licence thing can be explained in any simpler terms so i wont bother

Yes, it is pretty simple, I don't know why you can't fathom it, but don't beat yourself up over it, maybe you're good at something.

meeeeh

As far as I remember the loans were paid off by Irish Nationwide (I think) a day or so before end of accounting year so they didn't show up in bank accounts as outstanding. When the new accounting period started loans were back on the books. It was completely wrong but I don't think there was an intention of stealing the money.

As for minor fines, there is simple solution to avoid prison. Just deduct money at source in installments(wages, sw). I think a lot of people​ prefer to spend an afternoon in prison.

BoatMad

I always maintained to anyone that listened that Sean F would never be successfully prosecuted because it's not a crime to run a business badly. ( and it can't be )

The failure of Anglo was because it was overly exposed to a sector that collapsed not because Sean was engaging in wrongdoing in any material
Way.

The prosecution was a result of the " public outcry " a largely ignorant and utterly misinformed outcry , as very few people understand company law much less banking law , in fact most people don't understand how banks work at all

So hence the result of the office of corporate enforcemebt being forced to bring a triaLunder public pressure that should never have been brought before the courts in the first place

SeamusFX

meeeeh wrote: »

As far as I remember the loans were paid off by Irish Nationwide (I think) a day or so before end of accounting year so they didn't show up in bank accounts as outstanding. When the new accounting period started loans were back on the books. It was completely wrong but I don't think there was an intention of stealing the money.

As for minor fines, there is simple solution to avoid prison. Just deduct money at source in installments(wages, sw). I think a lot of people​ prefer to spend an afternoon in prison.

Unfortunately the government is good at deducting minor fines at source, but I don't know of any case where they deducted major fines or deducted stolen money at the source. Although in most of those type of cases, the crooks have the money well hidden.

SeamusFX

BoatMad wrote: »

I always maintained to anyone that listened that Sean F would never be successfully prosecuted because it's not a crime to run a business badly. ( and it can't be )

The failure of Anglo was because it was overly exposed to a sector that collapsed not because Sean was engaging in wrongdoing in any material
Way.

The prosecution was a result of the " public outcry " a largely ignorant and utterly misinformed outcry , as very few people understand company law much less banking law , in fact most people don't understand how banks work at all

So hence the result of the office of corporate enforcemebt being forced to bring a triaLunder public pressure that should never have been brought before the courts in the first place

Yes, the business was poorly run, but in addition to that rules were clearly broken during the cover up and that's what he should be doing time for.

meeeeh

SeamusFX wrote: »

Unfortunately the government is good at deducting minor fines at source, but I don't know of any case where they deducted major fines or deducted stolen money at the source. Although in most of those type of cases, the crooks have the money well hidden.

That is just a nonsense statement. They are not good at deducting stuff at source at all. If they were there would be no issues around Irish water or speeding fines or whatever other fines.

BoatMad

SeamusFX wrote: »

Yes, the business was poorly run, but in addition to that rules were clearly broken during the cover up and that's what he should be doing time for.

What specific rules were broken and even then, Anglo was already failing anyway.

The loans nor the B&B of them were illegal , the share support scheme to unwind Sean Quinn's position was largely the creation of David Drumm

I personally think Drum is the character that will " go down. " and he knows it which is why he skipped

Seamie in reality had little material part in any alleged illegalities,

prosecuting him to " ease " the outcry from the masses was always going to fail and fail it did.

( mind you few " ordinary " people in Ireland were exposed to Anglos collapse )

BoatMad

SeamusFX wrote: »

Unfortunately the government is good at deducting minor fines at source, but I don't know of any case where they deducted major fines or deducted stolen money at the source. Although in most of those type of cases, the crooks have the money well hidden.

You do realise that a company and its directors are sepetste legal entities. Directors are not , in general , personally responsible for company losses etc. That's the whole basis of " limited liability "

10000maniacs

Cyrus wrote: »

You've read a wiki and you think it's gospel

I'll reiterate it again

He didn't hide the loans from Anglo they granted the loans to him ! They weren't in the account that doesn't mean the bank weren't aware of them

Also for anyone to say that this led to the downfall of the bank is just barmy

You can reiterate it till the cows come home. Does not make your statements any more correct. If that wiki is slanderous to any of the Anglo crowd, I'm surprised it is still up there after all these years.

BoatMad

10000maniacs wrote: »

You can reiterate it till the cows come home. Does not make your statements any more correct. If that wiki is slanderous to any of the Anglo crowd, I'm surprised it is still up there after all these years.

The wiki certainly makes reference to several " scandals "

Scandals maybe , but illegality attributable to Seamie -no

Scandals of course are not the same as crimes

It's " convienent " for the looney left to direct , largely uneducated public opinion into blaming Anglo ( and banks ) to overlook the primary issue that was the states excessive public spending compared to its taxation intake and its that issue that brought in the Troika and so called austerity

Allinall

BoatMad wrote: »

You do realise that a company and its directors are sepetste legal entities. Directors are not , in general , personally responsible for company losses etc. That's the whole basis of " limited liability "

Unfortunately most people don't understand most of what went on in the period.

There's thread after thread on boards full of uninformed opinions, illogical rants and witch hunts against completely wrong targets.

I mostly blame laziness on the part of people who believe crap spouted by the mainstream media and social media.

Does anyone bother to make the effort to inform themselves before going off on one anymore?

knipex

SeamusFX wrote: »

Unfortunately the government is good at deducting minor fines at source

They actually suck at collecting fines at source which is why people in up being arrested

colm_mcm

Off topic a bit, bit I often see him referred to as FitzPatrick rather than Fitzpatrick. Is that a thing?

BoatMad

Allinall wrote: »

Unfortunately most people don't understand most of what went on in the period.

There's thread after thread on boards full of uninformed opinions, illogical rants and witch hunts against completely wrong targets.

I mostly blame laziness on the part of people who believe crap spouted by the mainstream media and social media.

Does anyone bother to make the effort to inform themselves before going off on one anymore?

Of course

The Looney left found a convenient scapegoat , in blaming the " banks " and especially Anglo and by extension the " centre right " FF and subsequent FG administration anthem lefts poster child, for this " crisis " became Seannie , rathe like Sadaam was used to focus US ire in the lead up to the invasion

Had the irish state maintained a fiscally reasonable and " tight " position post 2000+, and maintained taxation levels across all sectors, it would have be able to withstand the banking crisis and would have retained access to the sovereign markets.

However FF engaged in virtually " criminal ? mis-management and populist policies , dramatically increasing the public sector and all forms of public spending while removing unpopular middle and lower classes taxes and as a result concentrated tax take into the housing sector . The rest is history

The banks were the least of our problems in reality

BoatMad

colm_mcm wrote: »

Off topic a bit, bit I often see him referred to as FitzPatrick rather than Fitzpatrick. Is that a thing?

Fitzpatrick is the correct spelling , but some commentators seem to think its the same as Mc or Mac, with the next letter capitalised

10000maniacs

BoatMad wrote: »

The wiki certainly makes reference to several " scandals "

Scandals maybe , but illegality attributable to Seamie -no

Scandals of course are not the same as crimes

It's " convienent " for the looney left to direct , largely uneducated public opinion into blaming Anglo ( and banks ) to overlook the primary issue that was the states excessive public spending compared to its taxation intake and its that issue that brought in the Troika and so called austerity

You need to put "In Ireland" as a prefix to most of those sentences. Those American Bankers who we saw in chains and orange jumpsuits in 2008/ 2009 should have commited their crimes over here.

thebaz

BoatMad wrote: »

The prosecution was a result of the " public outcry " a largely ignorant and utterly misinformed outcry , as very few people understand company law much less banking law , in fact most people don't understand how banks work at all

So hence the result of the office of corporate enforcemebt being forced to bring a triaLunder public pressure that should never have been brought before the courts in the first place

The largely ignorant and utterly misinformed public, were the ones that got saddled with the debt when Anglo and Nationwide collapsed - maybe the ignorant public had a right to be angry given they would hardly have shared the spoils of profit on the banks gambling.

BoatMad

10000maniacs wrote: »

You need to put "In Ireland" as a prefix to most of those sentences. Those American Bankers who we saw in chains and orange jumpsuits in 2008/ 2009 should have commited their crimes over here.

Little different happened in the US


There have been 35 bankers sentenced to prison, said Christy Goldsmith Romero, the special inspector general for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (SIGTARP), in a report to Congress released Thursday "

"Many of the crimes involved relatively small amounts of money at smaller banks, rather than massive fraud at Wall Street banks."

some little guys got it in the next, very few of the wall street traders or bankers went down ( only one in reality )

Cyrus

SeamusFX wrote: »

Yes, it is pretty simple, I don't know why you can't fathom it, but don't beat yourself up over it, maybe you're good at something.

This is the thread that keeps on giving I'm sure you are great craic at the aaa rallies

Cyrus

10000maniacs wrote: »

You can reiterate it till the cows come home. Does not make your statements any more correct. If that wiki is slanderous to any of the Anglo crowd, I'm surprised it is still up there after all these years.

You have proven you have no idea what happened , what the crime was or what the law is

Your opinion is informed from wiki pedia and probably the sun or something

BoatMad

thebaz wrote: »

The largely ignorant and utterly misinformed public, were the ones that got saddled with the debt when Anglo and Nationwide collapsed - maybe the ignorant public had a right to be angry given they would hardly have shared the spoils of profit on the banks gambling.

in reality the " saddling " of whoever with the debt is somewhat immaterial, since its likely that the debt will be rolled over almost indefinitely

when we eventually tot up the results and gains from Boi, AIB, NAMA, IBRC etc , its likely we are looking at around net 20 billon cost excluding interest rate costs

And of course the guarantee should never have been extended from the pillar banks to Anglo in the first place.

The state could have easily financed the banking crisis if the public finances were in order , that was my point

That fact was, they were not and in reality thats what the Trokia funded ( it didnt fund the bank bailout ).

The public were utterly misled by this AAA bulls!t and are still being misled by it if one listens too the Dail commentary by certain individuals

10000maniacs

Cyrus wrote: »

You have proven you have no idea what happened , what the crime was or what the law is

Your opinion is informed from wiki pedia and probably the sun or something

Sure Fitzy. Hows the mitzy?

thebaz

BoatMad wrote: »

The state could have easily financed the banking crisis if the public finances were in order , that was my point

That fact was, they were not and in reality thats what the Trokia funded ( it didnt fund the bank bailout ).

The public were utterly misled by this AAA bulls!t and are still being misled by it if one listens too the Dail commentary by certain individuals

Anglo and Nationwide collapsing was the catalyst for bringing in Troika , if Anglo & Nationwide had fallen there was fear that there would be a run on all banks which would have complete crashed the Irish economy - no country really could have handled what happened - no one saw it coming , well very few , and when the **** it the fan , politician had to take gamble on scenario they were really ill equipped to handle - nationalising banks , advised no doubt by Brussels and Germany , to protect its banks. One big mess , but we are still alive.

BoatMad

thebaz wrote: »

Anglo and Nationwide collapsing was the catalyst for bringing in Troika , if Anglo & Nationwide had fallen there was fear that there would be a run on all banks which would have complete crashed the Irish economy - no country really could have handled what happened - no one saw it coming , well very few , and when the **** it the fan , politician had to take gamble on scenario they were really ill equipped to handle - nationalising banks , advised no doubt by Brussels and Germany , to protect its banks. One big mess , but we are still alive.

Incorrect and not sustained by the timeline.

Lehman failure caused shock waves through the interbank lending process, in effect causing it to seize up , especially for construction related collateral

In ireland, Anglo was uniquely exposed ( nationwide was a minnow ) and as a merchant bank , largely raised lending funds, via the interbank process rather then through central bank processes

This exposed Anglo to a direct and massive fault , and its much vaunted " backed by personal guarantee " proved to be useless

All of this would have been sustainable by the Irish State

The removal of the state from access to the sovereign bond market was the catalyst for the Troika ( because at that time the EU had no other rescue mechanism ) Th troika did not fund ( and could not fund ) the recapitalisation of the banks

The state was removed from the bond market because the underlying financial state of the public finances had deteriorated dramatically because of its reliance on construction taxes. This was a direct result of FF policies

The banks exacerbated the issue in ireland, They didnt cause it

nationalising banks , advised no doubt by Brussels and Germany , to protect its banks.

The EuroZone was quite right in ensuring that no Eurozone banks would be allowed to fail. Arguably given the doubt over the survival of the Euro at that time, that was the right thing to do.

However the Spanish handled it much better then the Irish, but then they had the benefit of watching us. We suffered because we were the first ( in the Eurozone )

SeamusFX

BoatMad wrote: »

You do realise that a company and its directors are sepetste legal entities. Directors are not , in general , personally responsible for company losses etc. That's the whole basis of " limited liability "

Yes, I know that. An individual is not responsible for company losses, but if any of those losses are related to something illegal the individual did, then the individual should be responsible. Defend Seanie Fitz all you want and we may not know all of what went on and he may not be legally responsible for reckless lending, but as a minimum, he is guilty of temporarily transferring loans from Anglo to Irish Life and Permanent and back to hide losses with the intent to deceive. Considering the stakes, this alone should warrant prison time. As far as the reckless lending and deceitful practices, this was also the fault of the financial regulators not doing their jobs properly (for whatever reason) and the fault of the government for not having adequate regulations in place.

So did the boys in Anglo commit illegal acts? Absolutely! Was Seanie Fitz responsible? We may never know the complete truth, but he was involved and they clearly knew what they were doing was wrong, but they still did it. Seanie was being paid the big bucks, so he should take some of the responsibility. Joe Public wouldn't get away with breaking the law by claiming ignorance, so why should Seanie?

Finally, the prosecution did have enough evidence against Seanie for a conviction, but he got off because the prosecution committed questionable practices including shredding documents, although we don't know what was in those documents. Why did the prosecution do such a thing and then admit it? Was this stupidity or some form of collusion? Why weren't charges brought against O'Connell for his illegal shredding activities? Is O'Connell still undergoing psychiatric care and was this a symptom of his illegal activities or maybe just a cover? If the case should have been thrown out, why didn't this happen over 2 years ago when the shredding was revealed, rather than run up more costs on the tax payer? There are too many questions and not enough answers, maybe Seanie wasn't the evil genius he is sometimes depicted to be, but he certainly isn't 100% innocent!

SeamusFX

Cyrus wrote: »

This is the thread that keeps on giving I'm sure you are great craic at the aaa rallies

Is that you Seanie?