Frank Connolly names the ministers who refused to clarify connections with Anglo

Apologies for being taking a short cut but just this once I hopes it's ok to link to something on the other place:

http://www.politics.ie/current-affairs/47298-reluctant-ministers-those-unanswered-questions.html

This is all pretty interesting stuff.

Aragon wrote:

Apologies for being taking a short cut but just this once I hopes it's ok to link to something on the other place:

http://www.politics.ie/current-affairs/47298-reluctant-ministers-those-unanswered-questions.html

This is all pretty interesting stuff.

Only works if you are a member, no good to me so.

Where did yesterdays thread on this subject go?

tonys wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Apologies for being taking a short cut but just this once I hopes it's ok to link to something on the other place:

http://www.politics.ie/current-affairs/47298-reluctant-ministers-those-unanswered-questions.html

This is all pretty interesting stuff.

Only works if you are a member, no good to me so.

Where did yesterdays thread on this subject go?

It merely said that Mary Coughlan, and Mary Hanafin, said that they had no dealings with Anglo Irish at any time while a spokesman for Dick Roche also said he had no involvement with the bank. It then lists 4 who apparently refused to comment on the grounds that private banking was just that a private matter. Fair enough that is their position. I will leave it up to whoever is responsible for the site to post up those named. I would imagine it is fine to report what they said and just that, but I'll leave it up to them.


However this brings us to an interesting position, purely hypothetical of course. Imagine for one moment I had a loan secured against assets then I have a contract with the bank and it cannot call in the loan or foreclose if I keep my side of the bargain. If however it was an unsecured loan, say an over draft, then I could be in severe problems if the bank called it in. So the form of any loan is important. If I was then in a position that could influence the interests of those lending in a very fundamental way do I have them by the proverbial, or do they have me? If the bank sinks then that loan will be called in. It is an interesting relationship and purely hypothetical as I do not have an overdraft and couldn't do Barclay's, Lloyds or any other bank any more harm than they are already suffering.

Tonys

If you are having problems with the link with p.ie it may be because of their silly new 'you must register nonsense to view policy', but you have a certain amount of unregistered views. You may have already used these up. To reset just go to your web browser, go to security and clear personal data. I think that may reset the counter. A political site that wants to influence limiting access makes as much sense as wings on an elephant.

Squire wrote:

tonys wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Apologies for being taking a short cut but just this once I hopes it's ok to link to something on the other place:

http://www.politics.ie/current-affairs/47298-reluctant-ministers-those-unanswered-questions.html

This is all pretty interesting stuff.

Only works if you are a member, no good to me so.

Where did yesterdays thread on this subject go?

It merely said that Mary Coughlan, and Mary Hanafin, said that they had no dealings with Anglo Irish at any time while a spokesman for Dick Roche also said he had no involvement with the bank. It then lists 4 who apparently refused to comment on the grounds that private banking was just that a private matter. Fair enough that is their position. I will leave it up to whoever is responsible for the site to post up those named. I would imagine it is fine to report what they said and just that, but I'll leave it up to them.


However this brings us to an interesting position, purely hypothetical of course. Imagine for one moment I had a loan secured against assets then I have a contract with the bank and it cannot call in the loan or foreclose if I keep my side of the bargain. If however it was an unsecured loan, say an over draft, then I could be in severe problems if the bank called it in. So the form of any loan is important. If I was then in a position that could influence the interests of those lending in a very fundamental way do I have them by the proverbial, or do they have me? If the bank sinks then that loan will be called in. It is an interesting relationship and purely hypothetical as I do not have an overdraft and couldn't do Barclay's, Lloyds or any other bank any more harm than they are already suffering.

Thanks for that, it's the same as yesterdays thread here so which seems to have disappeared for some reason.
Anglo is not a retail bank, it does not do overdrafts as far as I know, only loans against assets.

Squire wrote:

Tonys

If you are having problems with the link with p.ie it may be because of their silly new 'you must register nonsense to view policy', but you have a certain amount of unregistered views. You may have already used these up. To reset just go to your web browser, go to security and clear personal data. I think that may reset the counter. A political site that wants to influence limiting access makes as much sense as wings on an elephant.

heh - or as rockofcashel said - as practical as an ashtray on a motorbike. Have they removed it as it seems to me to not be limiting the amount of 'free views' you have of it anymore.

Kate P removed the other thread for the weekend. Lads ye should be enjoying yourselves on the off-time God knows ye work hard during the week all 5 days busting yeer chops hauling in the tax bacon.

Ok she pulled it because she's being cautious about there being legal implifications with it. Either that or she's giving p.ie an advantage with the shcandal conversation

I'm concerned that the article states ministers hadn't responded before the paper went to press. I doubt that would have been before this afternoon and so that may have Bern factually inaccurate.

I'm also concerned about tenuous, subtle suggestions which may link individuals with suggested improper action - no substantiation, just innuendo.

And the suspicious person in me wonders why the article has been leaked before publication, in it's apparent entirety.

I don't believe the article should be published on this site.

Frank Connolly doesn't work for the Mail any more, they parted ways. He's at Village now. The idea of him leaking his own stories before publication is silly.

toxic avenger wrote:

Frank Connolly doesn't work for the Mail any more, they parted ways. He's at Village now. The idea of him leaking his own stories before publication is silly.

I seem to remember a lot of MOS references in the article, no?

A few of us are of the mind that this shouldn't be discussed further here - what's your opinion of it, you transciptspotters?

Auditor #9 wrote:

A few of us are of the mind that this shouldn't be discussed further here - what's your opinion of it, you transciptspotters?

I think I wouldn't be relying on Frank Connolly for the accuracy of anything, TA on the other hand, unless I do him an injustice, thinks he’s pretty good. Having said that the whole printing it here first thing smells, just a bit, why that would be I can't say.

Auditor #9 wrote:

A few of us are of the mind that this shouldn't be discussed further here - what's your opinion of it, you transciptspotters?

It might well be an article he published on a freelance basis with the Mail in the recent past, I'm not an avid reader of it so I don't know, but he certainly wouldn't pre-leak his own story, if my experience of journalists is anything to go by. I don't think that there's anything legally problematic there (though Frank Connolly, while a very good investigative journalist, has come a cropper on a couple of occasions for getting carried away). If in doubt, leave it out.

Nowhere in the article is there any suggestion that any of these ministers have acted improperly. It's completely wrong to project readers' subjective interpretation of the possibilities for not having answered questions onto the author of the piece. He reported the state of play at the time of writing the piece. As we know, nothing more has been forthcoming from ministers or others since then.

If reporting FACTS causes people to feel uneasy about what those facts MIGHT mean, that is one thing. It is however outrageous to say that it is wrong to publish those FACTS because they give rise to speculation. Everything we are reading about this situation is causing speculation: that emphatically does not mean we should not be told everything there is to know. If anything we are being subjected to a disgraceful lack of forthrightness about the facts. The usual suspects are of course desperate to discredit this really rather straightforward piece of reporting. It's as if the disgracefulness of the ministers refusal were somehow the fault of Frank Connolly - and the only thing they can think to do is to shoot the messenger and find all sorts of spurious reasons for getting on their high horses about it. The article was not posted here first. It's been posted in a few places.

This all goes exactly to the heart of why all this economic shit is happening in the first place - the concocted untouchability of those responsible - this dumb, stupid shrieking everytime anything approaching the truth gets said. Grow up people - and don't let these idiots and fools intimidate you any longer. We are being ****ed over royally by a bunch of the worst incompetents and crooks the country has ever seen. Coming over like some distressed maiden aunt at the sight of a naked man when a little bit of reality and truth comes to light doesnt wash any more. (I appreciate that there are people posting here too who have genuine worries about this piece - but there really is no need for it at all.) If the country had another 20 Frank Connollys, we might all of us be in much better shape than we currently are: people with the guts and integrity to find out what is really going on and to tell it like it is.

Aragon wrote:

Nowhere in the article is there any suggestion that any of these ministers have acted improperly. It's completely wrong to project readers' subjective interpretation of the possibilities for not having answered questions onto the author of the piece. He reported the state of play at the time of writing the piece. As we know, nothing more has been forthcoming from ministers or others since then.

If reporting FACTS causes people to feel uneasy about what those facts MIGHT mean, that is one thing. It is however outrageous to say that it is wrong to publish those FACTS because they give rise to speculation. Everything we are reading about this situation is causing speculation: that emphatically does not mean we should not be told everything there is to know. If anything we are being subjected to a disgraceful lack of forthrightness about the facts. The usual suspects are of course desperate to discredit this really rather straightforward piece of reporting. It's as if the disgracefulness of the ministers refusal were somehow the fault of Frank Connolly - and the only thing they can think to do is to shoot the messenger and find all sorts of spurious reasons for getting on their high horses about it. The article was not posted here first. It's been posted in a few places.

This all goes exactly to the heart of why all this economic shit is happening in the first place - the concocted untouchability of those responsible - this dumb, stupid shrieking everytime anything approaching the truth gets said. FFS grow up people - and dont let these idiots and fools intimidate you any longer. We are being fucked over royally by a bunch of the worst incompetents and crooks the country has ever seen. Coming over like some distressed maiden aunt at the sight of a naked man when a little bit of really gets discussed doesnt wash any more. (I appreciate that there are people posting here too who have genuine worries about this piece - but there really is no need for it at all.) If the country had another 20 Frank Connollys, we might all of us be in much better shape than we currently are: people with the guts and integrity to find out what is really going on and to tell it like it is.

No, my issue is that this piece has been presented as being an advance preview of a future Mail article, which leads me to make two points. One, Connolly isn't paid by the Mail any more (though the possibility remains of freelance articles I suppose), and two, no journalist, Connolly included, leaks their own stories in advance, it is abhorrent to every instinct they have. If it is a story that has already been published, then problem solved. If the Mail's lawyers are happy, then no issue. But if it hasn't been published yet, I'd question the authenticity of it.

toxic avenger wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

A few of us are of the mind that this shouldn't be discussed further here - what's your opinion of it, you transciptspotters?

It might well be an article he published on a freelance basis with the Mail in the recent past, I'm not an avid reader of it so I don't know, but he certainly wouldn't pre-leak his own story, if my experience of journalists is anything to go by. I don't think that there's anything legally problematic there (though Frank Connolly, while a very good investigative journalist, has come a cropper on a couple of occasions for getting carried away). If in doubt, leave it out.

Frank Connolly is the ONLY investigative journalist we have in Ireland, and his fate at the hands of McDowell and Fianna Fail is not a coincidence. If FC has had some legal problems it is hardly surprising, he's the only person pushing the boat out and trying to get at the heart of what is happening. Joe Mac Anthony was the last person before him to really take the vested interests on and look what happened to him too. We have an exceptionally corrupt, chauvinistic political elite in this country - it has only one response to truth telling: to smash its face in at every opportunity. It's vicious and vindictive and people either consciously or subconsciously run scared before it. Does nobody see that this is the central reason why our particular version of the economic collapse is unfolding as it is? These people were and still are a law unto themselves. And here we are wetting our knickers because of this very straightforward article. It's because we are afraid of them, not because the article isnt true or is problematic. Grow some courage people!

This is the article as it was submitted to the Mail - it was published two weeks ago with edits. Its not a preview of anything. Just the original and FC gave permission for it to be published now as is.

Aragon wrote:

This is the article as it was submitted to the Mail - it was published two weeks ago with edits. Its not a preview of anything. Just the original and FC gave permission for it to be published now as is.

Well then, anything cleared by the Mail's lawyers is fine (assuming it's all the same piece). I don't see anything libelous anyway, as I said earlier.

Is it going a bit viral now ?
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=212400#p212400

Happens to be a thread on the REAL Anglo scandal posted originally by cYp on P.ie - how the basterds falsified their toxic loan amounts. In fairness the bank was rotten through and through and we saddled ourselves with it...

The question is why?

Wait till Nationwide is exposed. If it isn't as bad or worse than Anglo, I'll wear a dress for a month. And not a pretty dress.

coc wrote:

The question is why?

Why not

I meant "why did we nationalise (or guarantee for that matter) Anglo?". WTF were the Brians thinking?

coc wrote:

I meant "why did we nationalise (or guarantee for that matter) Anglo?". WTF were the Brians thinking?

This I hope will be the biggest lesson for the Irish people ever and I hope they feckin well learn from it. They / we won't though ....

I thought you meant why did Anglo dick with the toxic loan values....

Why the hell didn't we assess the bank properly and let it go to the bloody wall and let those who invested in it go with them. I'd love to see one day how it can be shown definitively that this bank was 'systemic'.... People feel robbed already - raped in fact - buggered. Something real ugly anyway.

i posted this on p.ie- think its worth raising here:

Last month, Martin Manseragh spoke to the Seanad during the debate on the Nationalisation of Anglo. Here's what he said

Quote :

Seanad Debate Tuesday, 20 January 2009

Deputy Martin Mansergh: I am stating authoritatively that there was no run on Anglo Irish Bank.

Last night the PwC report on the bank was published -

Quote :

The PwC extracts revealed that there was a run on the bank in
the week leading up to the Irish government's deposit guarantee with
panicked customers withdrawing a whopping 5.4 billion euros.
(Reuters)

Yes, That shit Lenihan is going to have to explain why he thought Anglo was systemic and in what way. He is responsible for theft from the Irish people on a monumental scale. He better have a bloody good excuse. Better than "lawyers are not economists" anyway.

I saw you posted that on the cyberianpan thread yehbut and it's a bit shocking at first but ....

Put yourself in his shoes though - runs on banks are the disaster you try to avoid. Deposits were protected though weren't they ? They were genuinely trying to save the bank I suppose ... See what happened to Northern Rock...

I'd wonder how much money has been withdrawn from all banks since this started - I'd say it's scary enough.