Northern Bank Robbery

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom, just as Northern Ireland is now. There's no "considered" about it.

That is the point he was making.

We were part of the UK and it was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It was not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the 26 counties of Ireland and the remaining 6 counties of Ireland

All the talk of democracy in action when we (=Ireland) left the UK is absolute nonsense. We were partitioned with immediate threat of all out war and as a force we would have been over-run quite easily. The British then partitioned Ireland in such a way to ensure an inherent in built majority for British rule. Democracy in action? ... you're having a laugh!!

oscarBravo

cdebru wrote:

It seems by call to get back on topic was a waste of time

Your hypocrisy is showing. There were two posts immediately after that post of yours on the topic, which you chose to ignore.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

That is the point he was making.

We were part of the UK and it was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It was not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the 26 counties of Ireland and the remaining 6 counties of Ireland

I'm confused. It seemed to me that FTA69 was using the fact of Ireland's erstwhile inclusion in the United Kingdom (a fact he managed to convey as some sort of rumour, or something) to question the right of British armed forces to patrol British territory.

Maybe you're right: maybe he was suggesting that partition was a greater evil than British rule. To suggest that a land mass is politically indivisible still seems a strange proposition, however, and I'm awaiting clarification.

cdebru

oscarBravo wrote:

Your hypocrisy is showing. There were two posts immediately after that post of yours on the topic, which you chose to ignore.

I missed those
but of course you can jump to conclusions its what you do best

cdebru

oscarBravo wrote:

Yes. Bank robbery is illegal, immoral and wrong. Whether you subscribe to "thou shalt not steal" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "an ye harm none, do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" - all valid codes of morality decry theft and violence.

illegal yes

immoral you have used christian ethics I dont use those to determine morality

as for valid codes

even christian codes allow for theft and violence in certain circumstances

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

As regards Bogus non residents accounts, they were so widespread, it's not accurate to describe it as an example of the Banks being thieves either.
Pensioners amongsts others signed contracts with their banks in the certain knowledge that they did not live overseas.
The Dirt tax oweable was payable by the account holder not the bank.
heh!
Read my post a little better,I've empasised it this time for you

ok so it was widespread then it is ok
so if everyone drank and drove then it would be ok because it was widespread
or perhaps if we all robbed banks it would be widespread and ok

it is an accurate example of them being thieves they aided and abetted people in evading their lawful duty to pay tax due
the money that was not paid was stolen from the Irish people

the bank knowing set up accounts for people who they knew for a fact were resident in this country
in fact they advised people to open such accounts in order to evade tax
the people who opened these accounts are guilty as well
the banks facilitated this just as the getaway driver in a bank robbery doesn't have to enter the bank to play his part in the robbery
the simple fact is that if the banks had not facilitated the tax evaders they would not have been able to evade tax they were an integral part of the tax evasion and as such paid the revenue millions when they were caught

the interesting part is that in this and all other scams involving the banks no one has yet been charged with any crime they are just allowed to pay back the money.a facility that i doubt will be offered to the people involved in this robbery if they are unlucky enough to be caught

cdebru

true wrote:

The interesting thing to come out of all this is that the people who have the biggest difficulty accepting bank robbery as immoral are also those who have the biggest difficulty accepting the IRA as immoral. The morality or otherwise of bank robbery should be clear to even the stupidest.

this is not on topic it is just true spouting his usual anti republican tripe

cdebru

Cork wrote:

So what if banks overchanged. .

I see so in your moral take on the world it is ok for banks to steal from its customers

Cork wrote:

The banks faced sanction and repaid over changed amounts. Criminal gangs usually buy houses and cars.

the difference is not what they do with the money but the consequences they face when caught one group of criminals are allowed to repay the money problem over
no one goes to gaol and they are free to find another method of stealing money and god forbid if they are caught they will just have to pay it back

the other group will face a long time in prison if caught

true

cdebru wrote:

this is not on topic it is just true spouting his usual anti republican tripe

My answer to which you refer ( which incidentally was a whopping 25 posts ago ) was on topic, as it refered to a query regarding the morality or otherwise of bank robbery. Regarding your assertion that I am "spouting my usual anti republican tripe", I think it is republican terrorist sympathisers ( eg IRA ) who are more likely to be offended rather than republican democrats.
As I said in my post, the morality or otherwise of bank robbery should be clear to even the stupidest. How anyone could condone large scale stealing in society, and frightening the wife of the bank official who had to be treated for hypothermia, is beyond me. Unless that is, they are part of the gang, or a similar gang.

cdebru

true wrote:

My answer to which you refer ( which incidentally was a whopping 25 posts ago ) was on topic, as it refered to a query regarding the morality or otherwise of bank robbery. Regarding your assertion that I am "spouting my usual anti republican tripe", I think it is republican terrorist sympathisers ( eg IRA ) who are more likely to be offended rather than republican democrats.
As I said in my post, the morality or otherwise of bank robbery should be clear to even the stupidest. How anyone could condone large scale stealing in society, and frightening the wife of the bank official who had to be treated for hypothermia, is beyond me. Unless that is, they are part of the gang, or a similar gang.

a whopping 25 off topic posts ago

it reffered to it then it just went into your usual ****e

and of course finish off with the usual you must be in "gang" bollox

it did not refer to what the discussion was about the morality of bank robbery
as opposed to the morality of the banks stealing from their customers or from the irish people.

do you condone the large scale stealing of bank customers money by the NIB
or that no one was charged or even sacked over this theft of customers money
what about the companies that went out of business because of this theft the people who lost their jobs and their homes whose lives were left in ruins because of these banks

do you condone the aiding of tax evasion by all of the major banks in this state that is the stealing of money due to the state

oscarBravo

cdebru wrote:

but of course you can jump to conclusions its what you do best

My friend, you have no idea what I do best.

cdebru wrote:

you have used christian ethics I dont use those to determine morality

Alister Crowley was a Christian, was he? :rolleyes: So, what do you use to determine morality?

cdebru wrote:

even christian codes allow for theft and violence in certain circumstances

Such as?

cdebru wrote:

what about the companies that went out of business because of this theft the people who lost their jobs and their homes whose lives were left in ruins because of these banks

Care to cite some examples?

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

cdebru

oscarBravo wrote:

My friend, you have no idea what I do best. Alister Crowley was a Christian, was he? :rolleyes: So, what do you use to determine morality? Such as? Care to cite some examples?

ok i will give you an example


if the people who robbed the bank took the money in order to pay for a medical procedure to save the live of someone a friend a relative whoever
If that was the only way that they could raise the money in time and they took the money from someone who did not really need it ie the bank

under those circumstances would it be morally ok to take the money

yes or no

dont argue about wether that was or was not the reason it is an IF question

oscarBravo

cdebru wrote:

if the people who robbed the bank took the money in order to pay for a medical procedure to save the live of someone a friend a relative whoever
If that was the only way that they could raise the money in time and they took the money from someone who did not really need it ie the bank

under those circumstances would it be morally ok to take the money

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? It's a silly hypothetical question.

It's clear you believe it would be morally OK, so let me throw it back at you with a modification: what if they stole the money from someone who wasn't a bank, but who wouldn't die for the want of it - would it be morally OK then?

cdebru wrote:

dont argue about wether that was or was not the reason it is an IF question

IF my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

cdebru

oscarBravo wrote:

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? It's a silly hypothetical question.

It's clear you believe it would be morally OK, so let me throw it back at you with a modification: what if they stole the money from someone who wasn't a bank, but who wouldn't die for the want of it - would it be morally OK then? IF my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

I didn't think you would have to the balls to answer it never mind your aunt or your uncle


but i will answer your question if they stole it under the hypothetical situation i stated above i would have no moral problem with it if they took it from someone who did not need it


If they took it out of greed from someone who had legitimately obtained the money that would not be morally ok in my book
wether the person who owned the money needed it or not

oscarBravo

cdebru wrote:

I didn't think you would have to the balls to answer it never mind your aunt or your uncle

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. I notice you didn't answer my irresistible force question.

cdebru wrote:

but i will answer your question if they stole it under the hypothetical situation i stated above i would have no moral problem with it if they took it from someone who did not need it

That's not an answer to my question. Answer the question - as asked - before you criticise me for not answering. At the very least, define - precisely - what you mean by "need".

cdebru wrote:

If they took it out of greed from someone who had legitimately obtained the money that would not be morally ok in my book
wether the person who owned the money needed it or not

Ah, but what defines "greed"? If you rob a post office to further the aims of an illegal organisation of which you're a member, does that mean you're not being greedy?

How do you define "legitimately obtaining"? A bank acquires most of its money by its customers voluntarily putting it there. Is this not legitimately obtained? Even if we accept that some of the money in a bank was obtained fraudulently from the customers, what percentage of the £22m does this make up?

Finally, let's revisit your cozy little codicil - whether or not the bank robbery was motivated by greed. Because, let's face it, that's why we're having this discussion: you applauded the actions of these criminals. Unless you genuinely believe that the gang in question all have close relatives at death's door and in need of treatment they can't get from the NHS, your hypothetical scenario is meaningless in context. So: was the robbery of this bank moral, and if so, why?

You've criticised me for not having the balls to answer your madey-uppy little question, so let's see what you've got: by my count, you've nine questions of mine to answer (only one of which is a stupid hypothetical one). I'm sure you won't be found wanting.

billy the squid

FTA69 wrote:

Ireland was considered a part of the United Kingdom back in the 20s

actually ireland was considered a member of the brittish commonwealth in the 1920s. If Ireland was considered part of the United Kingdom in the 1920s we in the republic would still be a part of the United Kingdom.

cdebru

oscarBravo wrote:

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. I notice you didn't answer my irresistible force question. That's not an answer to my question. Answer the question - as asked - before you criticise me for not answering. At the very least, define - precisely - what you mean by "need". Ah, but what defines "greed"? If you rob a post office to further the aims of an illegal organisation of which you're a member, does that mean you're not being greedy?

How do you define "legitimately obtaining"? A bank acquires most of its money by its customers voluntarily putting it there. Is this not legitimately obtained? Even if we accept that some of the money in a bank was obtained fraudulently from the customers, what percentage of the £22m does this make up?

Finally, let's revisit your cozy little codicil - whether or not the bank robbery was motivated by greed. Because, let's face it, that's why we're having this discussion: you applauded the actions of these criminals. Unless you genuinely believe that the gang in question all have close relatives at death's door and in need of treatment they can't get from the NHS, your hypothetical scenario is meaningless in context. So: was the robbery of this bank moral, and if so, why?

You've criticised me for not having the balls to answer your madey-uppy little question, so let's see what you've got: by my count, you've nine questions of mine to answer (only one of which is a stupid hypothetical one). I'm sure you won't be found wanting.

I answered your question

I have no moral problem with the robbery from this bank end of story
for what ever reason they robbed the bank

I may change my view when the people who stole money on behalf of the banks
along with the people who aided tax evasion in the banks have to face justice
when the cosy cartels that operate in the banking sector as exposed by bank of Scotlands entry into the Mortgage market are gone

when Those thing happen and the banks are no longer ripping people off I will reconsider wether it is immoral to steal money from a bank
But I dont expect to have to review my stance in the near future

cdebru

billy the squid wrote:

actually ireland was considered a member of the brittish commonwealth in the 1920s. If Ireland was considered part of the United Kingdom in the 1920s we in the republic would still be a part of the United Kingdom.

1920 1921 1922 no longer in the 1920s what decade do those years belong to

true

cdebru wrote:

I have no moral problem with the robbery from this bank end of story
for what ever reason they robbed the bank

I may change my view when the people who stole money on behalf of the banks
along with the people who aided tax evasion in the banks have to face justice

Cdebru has no moral problem with the bank robbers " for what ever reason they robbed the bank ". What if it was to buy drugs? What if it was to buy shiploads of semtex to start another 25 years of trouble? The money in that bank came from small depositors like you and me. If everyone robbed banks what sort of society would we live in ? What sort of financial order would it be in ?

The people "who stole money on behalf of the banks" did not do it for their own personal gain. Mistakes were made, but some people got fired and a lot of adverse publicity was gained for the banks. Very little money was "stolen" by the banks from anyone relative to the amount of turnover and other factors. I am not justifying the banks - they were wrong - but they admitted it and I am putting it in context a bit. It certainly could only ever be used as an excuse for the massive bank robbery by only a very small section of society.

When cdebru say the bank official "face justice" , what type of justice do you mean, given that they have faced - or had every opportunity to face - the full rigours of the law already, unlike the Northern bank robbers?

billy the squid

cdebru wrote:

1920 1921 1922 no longer in the 1920s what decade do those years belong to

WTF? on this planet those years would be considered as being in the 1920s. to say otherwise is just ****e talk and you bloody well know it.

I have no moral problem with the robbery from this bank end of story
for what ever reason they robbed the bank

unless it turns out to be a unionist gang, then it will be an outrage no doubt.

if the people who robbed the bank took the money in order to pay for a medical procedure to save the live of someone a friend a relative whoever
If that was the only way that they could raise the money in time and they took the money from someone who did not really need it ie the bank

For 22 million you could buy that sick relative a whole hospital for christ sake,

cdebru

true wrote:

Cdebru has no moral problem with the bank robbers " for what ever reason they robbed the bank ". What if it was to buy drugs? What if it was to buy shiploads of semtex to start another 25 years of trouble? The money in that bank came from small depositors like you and me. If everyone robbed banks what sort of society would we live in ? What sort of financial order would it be in ?

The people "who stole money on behalf of the banks" did not do it for their own personal gain. Mistakes were made, but some people got fired and a lot of adverse publicity was gained for the banks. Very little money was "stolen" by the banks from anyone relative to the amount of turnover and other factors. I am not justifying the banks - they were wrong - but they admitted it and I am putting it in context a bit. It certainly could only ever be used as an excuse for the massive bank robbery by only a very small section of society.

When cdebru say the bank official "face justice" , what type of justice do you mean, given that they have faced - or had every opportunity to face - the full rigours of the law already, unlike the Northern bank robbers?

see you make me laugh every time

thieves stealing from thieves just does not upset me


no one was sacked from the NIB NO ONE

they admitted it only after rte caught them by the bollox and they had tried to stop the truth coming out by dragging RTE through the courts seeking gagging orders

7.5 million euros by the NIB that is just from the overcharging scam that is how much the NIB stole from its customers in one scam
the small depositors as you put it that money came out of their pockets


they have not faced the full rigours of the law no one has been charged

cdebru

billy the squid wrote:

WTF? on this planet those years would be considered as being in the 1920s. to say otherwise is just ****e talk and you bloody well know it.,

exactly so what were you talking about
Ireland was considered apart of the UK in the 20s
1920 1921 1922

billy the squid wrote:

unless it turns out to be a unionist gang, then it will be an outrage no doubt.,

no already said i dont give a **** if it was the UVF

billy the squid wrote:

For 22 million you could buy that sick relative a whole hospital for christ sake,

it was an simple example how someone could steal without it being immoral I am not suggesting this was the case ffs

billy the squid

cdebru wrote:

exactly so what were you talking about
Ireland was considered apart of the UK in the 20s
1920 1921 1922

a yes the years before the treaty was enacted what about 1923 24 25 26 27 28 and 29 they were in the 20s, actually the majority of those years were in the 1920s although the republican movement have little regard for majorities.

Sparks

cdebru wrote:

thieves stealing from thieves just does not upset me

So what you're saying is that because high level officals in the banks have done immoral and illegal things, it's perfectly fine to terrorise the joe and jenny soaps who're working in the building as clerks, tellers, security guards, all of whom are as far from the Board of Directors as the average customer, and if you happen to shoot one or two of them in the process, that's fine too.

Or were you just speaking of one specific incident where only the wives and children of bank officals were terrorised? So that only two or three families will have to go through years of therapy to cope with post-traumatic stress disorders? That's fine too, since one of the family had done something immoral, right?

:rolleyes:

cdebru

billy the squid wrote:

a yes the years before the treaty was enacted what about 1923 24 25 26 27 28 and 29 they were in the 20s, actually the majority of those years were in the 1920s although the republican movement have little regard for majorities.

yes they were so the original statement that you tried to nit pick at was correct
do you accept that or do you want to try going off topic again

billy the squid

actually you were the one nitpicking, my message said that ireland was a member of the brittish commonwealth in the 1920s which it was. you were the one nit picking with your reference to 1920 1921 and 1922

now sit down and answer sparks question while you are here.

cdebru

Sparks wrote:

So what you're saying is that because high level officals in the banks have done immoral and illegal things, it's perfectly fine to terrorise the joe and jenny soaps who're working in the building as clerks, tellers, security guards, all of whom are as far from the Board of Directors as the average customer, and if you happen to shoot one or two of them in the process, that's fine too.

no one was shot in this robbery
and no it would not be fine to shoot a bank clerk
but taking money from thieves thats ok

Sparks wrote:

Or were you just speaking of one specific incident where only the wives and children of bank officals were terrorised? So that only two or three families will have to go through years of therapy to cope with post-traumatic stress disorders? That's fine too, since one of the family had done something immoral, right?

:rolleyes:

and you have what evidence that they will need years of therapy

I have already said i feel sorry for the families but no one died no one was injured
it is only money
i would prefer if another method of gaining access to the money was available
but if your only arguement for not taking the money is not upsetting the staff
or their families then would it be ok to take the money if they had tunnelled into the bank

I have no evidence that either of the bank officials involved have ever done anything immoral
the organisation they work for has

cdebru

billy the squid wrote:

actually ireland was considered a member of the brittish commonwealth in the 1920s. If Ireland was considered part of the United Kingdom in the 1920s we in the republic would still be a part of the United Kingdom.

this is your nit picking
plain for everyone to see

billy the squid

no one was shot in this robbery

not this robbery, does the name Gerry McCabe ring any bells though

and since when did you have to take a bullet before you felt terrorised.

but taking money from thieves thats ok

actually the customer is more entitled to the money behind the counter of a bank than the thieves who take it.

I have already said i feel sorry for the families but no one died no one was injured
it is only money

oh as long as no one was killed its grand so.

I have no evidence that either of the bank officials involved have ever done anything immoral
the organisation they work for has

the same principal is behind the fact that membership of the IRA is illegal

There may be no evidence that a person icarried out any terrorist acts, yet he is a member of an organisation that does carry them out.

billy the squid

oh and the term "brittish commonwealth" was introduced into brittish paperwork before world war 1 and it was an agreement to form the irish parlament (home rule) which was the first document to bear the words "brittish Commonwealth"