Slim Buddha wrote:

tonys wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

coc wrote:

I hope we can all agree that Seanie Fitz was reckless. I'm sure most of the Gombeen men can evade a charge of laziness, but I hardly think enthusiatic, driven and motivated corruption is something a well organised society should reward.

In a civilised country, Seanie Fitz would be facing charges. The fact that, as of now, he isn't, speaks volumes for the culture of corruption toleration in this society. It is revolting, sickening and debilitating.

In a civilised country, to face charges, you have to have done something illegal. What Mr. Fitz was involved in was all sorts of things, including extremely reckless, but not apparently illegal. There are countries who over the years have tried another way, one in particular quite close to where you live now, it usually doesn't end well.

A case then, tonys, for adequate and sufficient regulation, rigourously enforced. The market does NOT regulate itself, that much is clear.

The opinion that it was not illegal was Sean Fitz's own view. A number of people have expressed views to the contrary. Are the Guards not investigating this?

tonys wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

tonys wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

coc wrote:

I hope we can all agree that Seanie Fitz was reckless. I'm sure most of the Gombeen men can evade a charge of laziness, but I hardly think enthusiatic, driven and motivated corruption is something a well organised society should reward.

In a civilised country, Seanie Fitz would be facing charges. The fact that, as of now, he isn't, speaks volumes for the culture of corruption toleration in this society. It is revolting, sickening and debilitating.

In a civilised country, to face charges, you have to have done something illegal. What Mr. Fitz was involved in was all sorts of things, including extremely reckless, but not apparently illegal. There are countries who over the years have tried another way, one in particular quite close to where you live now, it usually doesn't end well.

A case then, tonys, for adequate and sufficient regulation, rigourously enforced. The market does NOT regulate itself, that much is clear.

Indeed, no argument there and a case maybe for not casting unjustified accusations of uncivilised behaviour without reference to the facts.

I said nothing that is not already in the public domain and such questions are hardly unjustified. It is a matter of serious public concern.

expat girl wrote:

The only alternative to nationalisation is to do a Roosevelt: publish the books, now. They won't want to do that in at least some cases; I'd like to bet that for at least 2-3 of the banks, it wouldn't make pretty reading and may make the panic worse. The alternative is that the Government steps in before there is a run on all things Irish.

Lenihan is on Dáil TV now and he just said it can't be published because it's confidential to many many depositors. Feck - can they not just publish the bad stuff ???

Link on the top of the Latest Discussions page.

I hope this debate is going to be detailed into all the figures - it's hard to get it all into the head what Lenihan is reading out.

Slim Buddha wrote:

tonys wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

tonys wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

coc wrote:

I hope we can all agree that Seanie Fitz was reckless. I'm sure most of the Gombeen men can evade a charge of laziness, but I hardly think enthusiatic, driven and motivated corruption is something a well organised society should reward.

In a civilised country, Seanie Fitz would be facing charges. The fact that, as of now, he isn't, speaks volumes for the culture of corruption toleration in this society. It is revolting, sickening and debilitating.

In a civilised country, to face charges, you have to have done something illegal. What Mr. Fitz was involved in was all sorts of things, including extremely reckless, but not apparently illegal. There are countries who over the years have tried another way, one in particular quite close to where you live now, it usually doesn't end well.

A case then, tonys, for adequate and sufficient regulation, rigourously enforced. The market does NOT regulate itself, that much is clear.

Indeed, no argument there and a case maybe for not casting unjustified accusations of uncivilised behaviour without reference to the facts.

I said nothing that is not already in the public domain and such questions are hardly unjustified. It is a matter of serious public concern.

The only thing you said that I'm not sure of SlimBuddha is that it was not illegal. It may well have been contrary to law, and I trust will be investigated by the appropriate authorities.

Slim Buddha wrote:

tonys wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

tonys wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

coc wrote:

I hope we can all agree that Seanie Fitz was reckless. I'm sure most of the Gombeen men can evade a charge of laziness, but I hardly think enthusiatic, driven and motivated corruption is something a well organised society should reward.

In a civilised country, Seanie Fitz would be facing charges. The fact that, as of now, he isn't, speaks volumes for the culture of corruption toleration in this society. It is revolting, sickening and debilitating.

In a civilised country, to face charges, you have to have done something illegal. What Mr. Fitz was involved in was all sorts of things, including extremely reckless, but not apparently illegal. There are countries who over the years have tried another way, one in particular quite close to where you live now, it usually doesn't end well.

A case then, tonys, for adequate and sufficient regulation, rigourously enforced. The market does NOT regulate itself, that much is clear.

Indeed, no argument there and a case maybe for not casting unjustified accusations of uncivilised behaviour without reference to the facts.

I said nothing that is not already in the public domain and such questions are hardly unjustified. It is a matter of serious public concern.

You said "In a civilised country, Seanie Fitz would be facing charges", SF is not facing charges in Ireland, therefore Ireland is not "a civilised country" as defined by you. A clear case of "casting unjustified accusations of uncivilised behaviour without reference to the facts" if ever there was one.

The reference to ********** toleration could be taken to imply **********. I am going to report the post because I think it exposes the site. I am not offended by it but the MODs may take a view.

actually, I think the market HAS been regulating itself. Very, VERY badly. Snafu, fubar.

On the plus side, doubt the bankers will be getting bonuses for a VERY long time

That makes my inner commie very happy. Not much else to be happy about however.

Aragon wrote:

unaligned wrote:

The term 'investment' should never have been used as a synonym for 'gamble'. Those who invested in bank shares (whatever the entry level) presumably understood that they were gambling their money on a company's performance. Similarly those who spent 400k + on a badly developed box in North Kildare took an enormous gamble, although they probably didn't know it at the time. I feel hugely sorry for 'the little guy' in all of this, but it was a gamble and personal responsibility has to enter the equation at some point.

The advice coming at people from all sides was that buying was the responsible thing to do financially - that renting was just throwing money down the drain. I don't have much sympathy for those who bought second and third homes though - dabbling in the buy to let arena. That was definintely gambling. But it's a bit much when people who simply wanted a roof over their heads are now being told they have behaved irresponsibly by buying their home.

This was also the same advice given to anyone who had money to invest however they got that money. So why have sympathy for those who were told buyin a house was responsible but no sympathy for those who were told buying shares was? This seems a hypocritical position.

johnfás wrote:

Aragon wrote:

unaligned wrote:

The term 'investment' should never have been used as a synonym for 'gamble'. Those who invested in bank shares (whatever the entry level) presumably understood that they were gambling their money on a company's performance. Similarly those who spent 400k + on a badly developed box in North Kildare took an enormous gamble, although they probably didn't know it at the time. I feel hugely sorry for 'the little guy' in all of this, but it was a gamble and personal responsibility has to enter the equation at some point.

The advice coming at people from all sides was that buying was the responsible thing to do financially - that renting was just throwing money down the drain. I don't have much sympathy for those who bought second and third homes though - dabbling in the buy to let arena. That was definintely gambling. But it's a bit much when people who simply wanted a roof over their heads are now being told they have behaved irresponsibly by buying their home.

This was also the same advice given to anyone who had money to invest however they got that money. So why have sympathy for those who were told buyin a house was responsible but no sympathy for those who were told buying shares was? This seems a hypocritical position.

A home is an essential, basic need. Buying shares is gambling - alway was, always will be. If you have money to spend on shares, you are obviously doing ok. Saving with an institution like the Credit Union is a sensible way to save moeny and something which benefits the whole community at the same time. However, I understand the CU may be hit because it too is said to have relaxed its rules by dishing out bridging loans to people so they could buy houses. I've not seen a report that verifies that so it may not be true.

No, shelter is an essential basic need. Ownership of one's own home is a luxury not a right. I know plenty of families who have always rented their home and have had no difficulty in doing so.

Pat Rabbitte slamming the Auditors.

Aragon wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Aragon wrote:

unaligned wrote:

The term 'investment' should never have been used as a synonym for 'gamble'. Those who invested in bank shares (whatever the entry level) presumably understood that they were gambling their money on a company's performance. Similarly those who spent 400k + on a badly developed box in North Kildare took an enormous gamble, although they probably didn't know it at the time. I feel hugely sorry for 'the little guy' in all of this, but it was a gamble and personal responsibility has to enter the equation at some point.

The advice coming at people from all sides was that buying was the responsible thing to do financially - that renting was just throwing money down the drain. I don't have much sympathy for those who bought second and third homes though - dabbling in the buy to let arena. That was definintely gambling. But it's a bit much when people who simply wanted a roof over their heads are now being told they have behaved irresponsibly by buying their home.

This was also the same advice given to anyone who had money to invest however they got that money. So why have sympathy for those who were told buyin a house was responsible but no sympathy for those who were told buying shares was? This seems a hypocritical position.

A home is an essential, basic need. Buying shares is gambling - alway was, always will be. If you have money to spend on shares, you are obviously doing ok. Saving with an institution like the Credit Union is a sensible way to save moeny and something which benefits the whole community at the same time. However, I understand the CU may be hit because it too is said to have relaxed its rules by dishing out bridging loans to people so they could buy houses. I've not seen a report that verifies that so it may not be true.

Credit Unions don't keep their money in a safe on the premises and they also lend more than they have. The invest their money to get a return and risk is entailed. Its the capitalist system.

cactus flower wrote:

Pat Rabbitte slamming the Auditors.

In fairness to the auditors, and I will reserve judgement until I know more details because the thing does look really dodgy, they can only request information from directors. They do not have access to all the day to do accounts of the company so there is a strong possibility that things can be done under the nose of the auditor.

Directors loans are an item that is always sensitive as it is so obviously open to abuse. I understand that it is normal good practice to issue a questionnaire to Directors with regard to their loans.

The Anglo Auditors were asked if they had done this and they had no comment.

Quote :

Credit Unions don't keep their money in a safe on the premises and they also lend more than they have. The invest their money to get a return and risk is entailed. Its the capitalist system.

There is one big difference:

"What is a credit union?
A credit union is a group of people who save together and lend to each other at a fair and reasonable rate of interest. Credit unions offer members the chance to have control over their own finances by making their own savings work for them. Every credit union is owned by the members — the people who save and borrow with it — People like you.
When you become a member and start saving with your credit union you will have access to fair and reasonable rates on savings and loans.
Your savings contribute to your credit union’s loan fund. So your savings are helping other members. Members like you.
A credit union exists only to serve its members — not to profit from their needs. Surplus income generated is returned to the members by way of a dividend an/or is directed to improved or additional services required by the members.
Credit unions are non-sectarian and non-political, and continue that Irish tradition of co-operative self help.
It has been shown throughout history that by working together people can achieve far more through co-operation than by individual effort. The success of the credit union movements worldwide is a clear illustration of this. Credit unions have served their members well in Ireland for the last 50 years, and as long as there are active members, they will continue to do so.

http://www.creditunion.ie/Default.aspx?p=101&n=141

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

The reference to ********** toleration could be taken to imply **********. I am going to report the post because I think it exposes the site. I am not offended by it but the MODs may take a view.

You are going to report me saying "corruption toleration"?? Fine by me.

tonys wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

tonys wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

tonys wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

coc wrote:

I hope we can all agree that Seanie Fitz was reckless. I'm sure most of the Gombeen men can evade a charge of laziness, but I hardly think enthusiatic, driven and motivated corruption is something a well organised society should reward.

In a civilised country, Seanie Fitz would be facing charges. The fact that, as of now, he isn't, speaks volumes for the culture of corruption toleration in this society. It is revolting, sickening and debilitating.

In a civilised country, to face charges, you have to have done something illegal. What Mr. Fitz was involved in was all sorts of things, including extremely reckless, but not apparently illegal. There are countries who over the years have tried another way, one in particular quite close to where you live now, it usually doesn't end well.

A case then, tonys, for adequate and sufficient regulation, rigourously enforced. The market does NOT regulate itself, that much is clear.

Indeed, no argument there and a case maybe for not casting unjustified accusations of uncivilised behaviour without reference to the facts.

I said nothing that is not already in the public domain and such questions are hardly unjustified. It is a matter of serious public concern.

You said "In a civilised country, Seanie Fitz would be facing charges", SF is not facing charges in Ireland, therefore Ireland is not "a civilised country" as defined by you. A clear case of "casting unjustified accusations of uncivilised behaviour without reference to the facts" if ever there was one.

In almost any other country where proper corporate governance is in place SF would be charged. Here he goes on holidays. Fcuking nonsense!!

Auditor #9 wrote:

Arthur Morgan mentioned corruption in the Dáil just earlier - he's got immunity I suppose though.

We as a nation have been badly exposed for having no proper corporate governance in place, no proper checks in the banking sector, no serious auditing structure in place in Anglo-Irish and the result is foreign investor flight from Irish banks as was seen in the last 2 days. If we wont face up to the corrupt nature of what passed for banking up to now, we will have to wake up fast and call it as it is. Otherwise, Ireland is finished.

Even in "corrupt-latin" Spain, there are plenty of developers and politcians doing sitting and rotting in gaol. To be sure there are plenty of scoundrals on the loose but every now and again they like to make an example(good habit that) to show that they really are a serious 1st world country.
Ireland seems to be the only country that does not have any white collar crime. Angels the lot of them I suppose.

Jaysus we have two threads on this, nearly three if you include the ISEQ.

Please

Keep running Dáil commentary to the Dáil thread as though someone was looking for a quick rundown from an office and couldn't watch.

Everything else here ...

The Irish banks are governed by Basel.
It appears the loans to Directors were disclosed in quarterly reports to the Financial Regulator.
The regulatory failure is international and is a failure of the system:
FT Article - The Failure of Financial Regulation

Respvblica wrote:

Even in "corrupt-latin" Spain, there are plenty of developers and politcians doing sitting and rotting in gaol. To be sure there are plenty of scoundrals on the loose but every now and again they like to make an example(good habit that) to show that they really are a serious 1st world country.
Ireland seems to be the only country that does not have any white collar crime. Angels the lot of them I suppose.

Indeed, blessed we are.

hmm.... Ray Burke and Liam Lawlor did get canned. I would agree that 2 jailed politicians is not a lot.....but....Frank Dunlop, didn't he go down as well??

We did have the tribunals and Haughey and Lowry were roundly humiliated, Ahern was forced to resign.... can anyone think of any others??

Interesting that Zhou says Seanie has benefitted from a Basel loophole not just an Irish one. Which leads on to the question of how many international merchant bankers have been doing a Seanie?? guess we'll never know, but I'll bet when the dust settles in a few years time he'll not be the only one. I'd bet half the City was borrowing moolah to put on property and shares during the boom. And as for Wall Street.....

Respvblica wrote:

Even in "corrupt-latin" Spain, there are plenty of developers and politcians doing sitting and rotting in gaol. To be sure there are plenty of scoundrals on the loose but every now and again they like to make an example(good habit that) to show that they really are a serious 1st world country.
Ireland seems to be the only country that does not have any white collar crime. Angels the lot of them I suppose.

Joan Burton seems to be agreeing with me.