Why are looting, vandalism, and thuggery ok, as long as you're wearing a suit?

hatrickpatrick

Ok so this will probably be dismissed as another rant or moan thread; It's not. I'm actually looking for a genuine debate here, and hoping maybe to gain some insight.

England's politicians have been universal in their unconditional condemnation (and rightly so) of what has happened on Britain's streets over the last week. "Criminality pure and simple" is how Cameron has described it. The police have already arrested a thousand people and many, many more arrests will inevitably follow. The courts are staying open all night to process these cases as quickly as possible, and many are being referred to larger courts where they can receive harsher penalties. Excellent. I completely support and agree with such measures and I hope they work to prevent this sort of violence reoccurring.

But WHY is there a certain class of citizen which is completely untouchable? Why is it that the mindless thuggery of hacking a murder victim or a celebrity's phone is not only swept under the carpet, but actively participated in apparently by both the politicians AND the police? Why is it that a six month prison sentence isn't considered harsh enough for someone who smashed a window and stole a pair of shoes, but even so much as a proper investigation is considered too much for someone who fiddled their balance sheet so their bank's shares would go up? Why is it that someone who set fire to a car can expect the police to smash their front door in with an axe at seven o clock in the morning, but someone who is directly responsible for the smouldering ruin that is the entire economy can merely expect to be "kicked upstairs" or else resign gracefully with a massive golden handshake?

There is something very sick and wrong in the heart of our society all right. But Cameron & co are not looking in the right places for it.

My question is, why? What do they gain from protecting the corporate class? If I was elected to the Dail tomorrow, what sort of madness would drive me to abandon the above principle and start turning a blind eye to corruption? I find it extremely hard to believe that these people were always corrupt. I'm sure that as a youth David Cameron as much as Bertie Ahern, Tony Blair, or Enda Kenny, were not always corrupt, crony-courting individuals from birth.

What is the root cause of THIS type of thug?

NB: No mud slinging, personal attacks, or cliched ranting please, I honestly want a real conversation about this because I genuinely have been thinking about it for some time and I honestly can't figure it out.

If I was elected tomorrow, how long would it take for me to become "one of them", and by what process would it happen? I can't imagine it happening, but then I'm sure many of the authorities who defend the corrupt establishment were also utterly disgusted by it in their youth. What causes people to turn to the dark side, as it were?

Laminations

What causes people to turn to the dark side, as it were?

Well that's the 64 million dollar question and you'll be waiting a long time for an answer especially for one to emerge on an Internet forum.

I shared my views re banking/corporate mistakes and White collar criminal negligence on many previous threads - in short, there has not been justice, punishments and consequences have not been visited on the perpetrators.

BUT you can prevent a white collar criminal from harming society further simply by removing him from his position. Remove from his possession the corporate tools he abuses and society is safe from his ill intentions. For violent crime you need to remove the culprit from society as they'll find any tools with which to inflict further damage on orhers. removing the gun criminal from his menial job will likely lead to a heightening of his criminal intentions and motivate him on his path further into violence.

So removing the banker from the bank is enough to protect society but by no means sufficient punishment so we can claim justice is not done.

But removing the violent offender from society is the only recourse that's enough to protect society. Again incarceration alone doesn't mean justice has been done.

So I'm saying all that with a firm desire to see corporate criminals being jailed but if it's a choice between a violent looter and a slimy banker for limited prison space, I'd feel the streets would be safer incarcerating the former.

Dob74

Because corporate criminals give great kick backs. I am sure Blair and Ahern are busy stuffing thier pockets with cash from nice speaking gigs. Cameron will be doing it in a few years:mad::mad::mad:

whippet

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is it that the mindless thuggery of hacking a murder victim or a celebrity's phone is not only swept under the carpet,

eehh .... this wasn't swept under a carpet, it was an global news scandal, which lead to the shutting down of one of the oldest UK national newspapers and put an end to a massive take over of BSB ...... a little perspective needed i think.

Plus there has been plenty of arrests and the prosecutions will take longer as there is complicated legal issues here. A looter once charged can be prosecuted quicker as the evidence is usually rock solid and has little avenue for legal challenge.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is it that a six month prison sentence isn't considered harsh enough for someone who smashed a window and stole a pair of shoes,

its more to do with the context of why the shop window was smashed and the shoes stolen. It was mass civil disobedience .. which is a very serious crime ... despite your attempt to belittle the actual crime .. Rioting and Looting in some states can be met with shooting on site by the local police.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

but even so much as a proper investigation is considered too much for someone who fiddled their balance sheet so their bank's shares would go up? Why is it that someone who set fire to a car can expect the police to smash their front door in with an axe at seven o clock in the morning, but someone who is directly responsible for the smouldering ruin that is the entire economy can merely expect to be "kicked upstairs" or else resign gracefully with a massive golden handshake?

again, the timescale for prosecution of some of these 'white collar' crimes can be quite long due to the complex nature of the evidence required and the forensic investigations required. Whereby CCTV images of a scumbag smashing a car window and torching it can be dealt with very quickly.

With the back drop of 4 nights of rioting and looting it was very important to set up the courts to deal with each and every case quickly to deter others not to keep rioting and to ensure the ring leaders were locked up in case it kicked off again. The chance of these criminals reoffending in the very near future was extremely high, which meant fast-tracking the legal system.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There is something very sick and wrong in the heart of our society all right. But Cameron & co are not looking in the right places for it.

My question is, why? What do they gain from protecting the corporate class? If I was elected to the Dail tomorrow, what sort of madness would drive me to abandon the above principle and start turning a blind eye to corruption? I find it extremely hard to believe that these people were always corrupt. I'm sure that as a youth David Cameron as much as Bertie Ahern, Tony Blair, or Enda Kenny, were not always corrupt, crony-courting individuals from birth.

What is the root cause of THIS type of thug?

NB: No mud slinging, personal attacks, or cliched ranting please, I honestly want a real conversation about this because I genuinely have been thinking about it for some time and I honestly can't figure it out.

If I was elected tomorrow, how long would it take for me to become "one of them", and by what process would it happen? I can't imagine it happening, but then I'm sure many of the authorities who defend the corrupt establishment were also utterly disgusted by it in their youth. What causes people to turn to the dark side, as it were?

Comparing Rioters and violent criminals to 'white collar' criminals isn't a wise one to make. Also, blaming the actions of these thugs over the last week on the 'establishment' to me seems like an attempt to justify their actions .. which can not be done.

hatrickpatrick

whippet wrote: »

eehh .... this wasn't swept under a carpet, it was an global news scandal, which lead to the shutting down of one of the oldest UK national newspapers and put an end to a massive take over of BSB ...... a little perspective needed i think.

Politicians AND the police attempted to cover it up, hence why the scandal has become so much bigger than it ever should have allowed to become. Did you miss the bit where the chief of police resigned?

Plus there has been plenty of arrests and the prosecutions will take longer as there is complicated legal issues here. A looter once charged can be prosecuted quicker as the evidence is usually rock solid and has little avenue for legal challenge.

Why is Seanie not under investigation and why is he unlikely ever, EVER to come to trial? It's been two years since the revelations, is there even a case being built against him?

its more to do with the context of why the shop window was smashed and the shoes stolen. It was mass civil disobedience .. which is a very serious crime ... despite your attempt to belittle the actual crime .. Rioting and Looting in some states can be met with shooting on site by the local police.

I'm not attempting to belittle it, I'm attempting to put it in perspective by saying that destroying the entire economy through fraud is far, far worse, and therefore SHOULD be treated far more harshly. Therefore, if these rioters are keeping the courts open all night and the police are working around the clock to capture them, they should be working TEN TIMES AS HARD to apprehend those responsible for the economic meltdown.

again, the timescale for prosecution of some of these 'white collar' crimes can be quite long due to the complex nature of the evidence required and the forensic investigations required. Whereby CCTV images of a scumbag smashing a car window and torching it can be dealt with very quickly.

That'd be fine if they were being investigated. But they're not. Where's the tribunal, the public enquiry, the mass police raids of banks and offices? They're not happening.

With the back drop of 4 nights of rioting and looting it was very important to set up the courts to deal with each and every case quickly to deter others not to keep rioting and to ensure the ring leaders were locked up in case it kicked off again.

I would argue that if such vigour had been applied to the banks, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. It's pretty important to catch the ringleaders of fraud too, in case it kicks off again, no?

The chance of these criminals reoffending in the very near future was extremely high, which meant fast-tracking the legal system.

LOL
You think there's a low chance of the banksters reoffending? Particularly when they know the government will always cover their ass if they do?

Comparing Rioters and violent criminals to 'white collar' criminals isn't a wise one to make.

The corrupt financials have inarguably caused far more suffering to far more people than the riots have.

Also, blaming the actions of these thugs over the last week on the 'establishment' to me seems like an attempt to justify their actions .. which can not be done.

Where did I blame the riots on the establishment? Think you're misreading my post there, I make no attempt whatsoever to excuse it

whippet

where do I start !!!!!!

I didn't think you were trying to compare the rioters, looter and whole UK government with Anglo ..... chalk and cheese ...

As for Seanie, he is under investigation .. there is a file being prepared for the DPP .. admittedly it is taking an age but when there is complex financial and legal loop holes to jump through this will always take much longer than convicting a rioting thug.

You must have missed these bits of news

Anglo raided by guards

Seanie arrested

There has been wholesale changes in the banking system in both the UK and Ireland .. including the capping of wages, forced resignations etc ...

the problems were due to the widely held belief in the western economies that the financial industry could regulate themselves and that they were doing quite well

Gordon brown as late as 2007 said the city bankers were great !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQ0OYqB3lo

It would be great to be able to lynch the likes of Seanie to a public audience on College Green but unfortunalty (well fortunately) that isn't the way civil society works.

There is a fine line between stupidity, fraud and mistakes in the financial world .. proving either way isn't always easy.

There are so many factors to the decline in the irish, UK and Global economies that are at play here. The whole deck of cards came about when these Sub-Prime mortgage products (which were rated AAA by the infamous rating agencies), cheap credit dried up - which was being used by our bankers (another those of other countries) to facilitate increasing stupid and reckless lending .. leading to the start of the mess we are now in.

To our detriment in ireland the misinformation, bad advise, fraudulent reporting , stupidity or corruption (depending on your own opinion) which resulted in the government making a very rash decision to give a blanket guarantee over all bank debt has compounded the actions of these bankers.

It isn't black and white .. hell it isn't even twenty different colors ...

I have no doubt that there are people who should be behind bars over this but I can at least have some understanding that a witch hunt fueled by tabloid headlines isn't the way to go.

I personally wish the investigations would run quicker but I would prefer a full and proper investigation to a sweep under the carpet token head chopping.

Sunnyisland

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/white-collar-crime-probes-reveal-states-puny-powers-2567668.html

Barrister Remy Farrell said that many of the charges set out on the statute books were "completely unprosecutable" and said that the vast majority of regulatory crimes appeared to have been drafted "with little reference to the possibility of prosecution".
Despite a gap in legislation that you could drive an aircraft carrier through, the fianna fail-led government did not bring in new legislation to deal with white-collar crime

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/not-one-whitecollar-criminal-ever-jailed-admits-watchdog-2246335.html

Senior Counsel Mary Ellen Ring said the ODCE confirmation that the vast majority of its convictions were secured in the District Court begged the question as to whether we were "living a lie" that Ireland prosecutes white-collar crime,
White-collar crime often appeared "more remote, more victimless and often is less dramatic and it posed as serious a threat to Irish society as 'ordinary' lawlessness, including organised crime.
"Misconduct in the banking and corporate sectors, in the distortion of competition in the market, pose as much if not more of a threat to our security than ordinary crime."

Until we are seeing to be dealing with the corrupt and frauds in the top echelons of our society we haven't a hope of ever dealing with the lower everyday crimes,it starts from the top down, Show & lead by example.

hatrickpatrick

Ok, so basically you guys are saying that it's more the problems involved in prosecuting fraud vs the ease of prosecuting rioters, rather than any deliberate shielding of the financial elite by the government.

This may very well be the case. To me it seems very obvious that there is a political clique situation involved whereby the government are more or less in bed with the big corporate players, and I was merely wondering what the government gets out of such a deal. Perhaps I'm being too cynical.

I mean I can understand why business sucks up to government, because they have something to gain. What does government have to gain by bailing out gamblers and what not? Is there bribery, is it a matter of repaying old favours, is it simply a social friendship issue, what is it?

Does anyone honestly doubt that there is a fairly corrupt amount of cronyism? What would I as a TD get out of siding with the banksters? Easier access to credit or something?

This isn't trying to make a point, I'm genuinely curious about this. Cronyism is a word which is constantly bandied around. But no one ever really explains what the government gets out of playing along with it. Aside from the most painfully obvious examples like Bertie getting his house done up for free and all that malarky, what does your average politician get out of taking part in these activities? IF I was made a TD tomorrow, would I eventually end up just as jaded and corrupt? And if so, why?

caseyann

Simple answer.Because the people arent together and saying no all in one voice.
And basically People are their slaves.
Economic slavery.

Liam Byrne

Because those with money can pay expensive solicitors to check the wording of the law and get away with fraud as a result due to badly-worded laws - the perfect example being Callelly and his "principle place of residence" - if that was phrased as "where you live", he'd have been rightly caught red-handed.

Basically, if legal documents weren't (deliberately, IMHO) made so convoluted so as to ensure that lawyers and the like are required further down the line to decipher them, we'd be in with some chance.

That said, there are plenty of loopholes for your "common garden criminal" too, as any glance through the local papers will show you, where some barrister gets someone off because "they had no facilities growing up".......I had "no facilities growing up", and I didn't turn into either type of low-life.

whippet

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What does government have to gain by bailing out gamblers and what not? Is there bribery, is it a matter of repaying old favours, is it simply a social friendship issue, what is it?

This I think is the crux of your questions and suspicions I reckon.

What did the government get from the blanket guarantee? Personally I don't think this decision was in any way corrupt .. in hindsight it was totally incorrect .. but at the time what the government wanted from this decision was stability in the irish banking sector and economy.

In the days after the decision the markets reacted positively to the decision, the UK Finance minister hailed it as a wonderful decision and in parts of europe it was believed that the Irish government had pulled a master stroke.

However, the reality was very far from this initial reaction ... the banks were not 100% honest about their positions and the effect of lack of information and a hurried decision meant that we ended up bailing out the bankers to the tune of horrific amounts of money.

On that fateful night the other extreme would have been to allow the banks to fail .... while we can speculate what might have happened we can never know for sure.

Liam Byrne

whippet wrote: »

What did the government get from the blanket guarantee? Personally I don't think this decision was in any way corrupt .. in hindsight it was totally incorrect ..

It didn't take hindsight to realise it was a disastrous idea.

However, the reality was very far from this initial reaction ... the banks were not 100% honest about their positions and the effect of lack of information and a hurried decision meant that we ended up bailing out the bankers to the tune of horrific amounts of money.

Which is the problem - and you're even fudging the issue by phrasing it as "not 100% honest"; they lied.

And if I lie to a government agency I end up in trouble with the law; if I lie to a company the contract is null and void. However neither of these apply to those who lied, which is the OP's question - why ?

Mr. Presentable

How can you compare hacking a phone with robbing and burning a man's shop and home?

anymore

Thaonk about and the looters have been availing of thier very own bailout system - permanent acess to Social Welfare from cradle to grave.
Could we make the point that not all banks in the UK avail of the bailout.

anymore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ok, so basically you guys are saying that it's more the problems involved in prosecuting fraud vs the ease of prosecuting rioters, rather than any deliberate shielding of the financial elite by the government.

This may very well be the case. To me it seems very obvious that there is a political clique situation involved whereby the government are more or less in bed with the big corporate players, and I was merely wondering what the government gets out of such a deal. Perhaps I'm being too cynical.

I mean I can understand why business sucks up to government, because they have something to gain. What does government have to gain by bailing out gamblers and what not? Is there bribery, is it a matter of repaying old favours, is it simply a social friendship issue, what is it?

Does anyone honestly doubt that there is a fairly corrupt amount of cronyism? What would I as a TD get out of siding with the banksters? Easier access to credit or something?

This isn't trying to make a point, I'm genuinely curious about this. Cronyism is a word which is constantly bandied around. But no one ever really explains what the government gets out of playing along with it. Aside from the most painfully obvious examples like Bertie getting his house done up for free and all that malarky, what does your average politician get out of taking part in these activities? IF I was made a TD tomorrow, would I eventually end up just as jaded and corrupt? And if so, why?

Maybe you should ask any politicians who were able to get almost instant loans without any of the tedium that normal loan applicants have to go through.
I understand Mr Blair himself is going into the ' banking business. :
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/tony-blairs-new-bank-for-super-rich/story-e6frg6so-1225908461998
TONY Blair has formed his own finance boutique in London to offer investment services to global funds and the super-rich.
His Mayfair-based company has recruited senior financiers and has been authorised by the Financial Services Authority. It will effectively be a fledgling investment bank.
News of the former British prime minister's diversification into finance will help to explain how he can afford to give away the estimated 5 million pounds proceeds of his memoirs, A Journey, to the Royal British Legion. His predecessors in Downing Street have relied on their books to provide for their retirement.
Since leaving office in 2007, Blair has amassed a fortune estimated to be in excess of 20 million pounds. He has combined his role as a roving statesman with charitable work and paid advisory roles......."

Mr Blair was barely out of office a year when he joined investment bankers JP Morgan " "in a senior advisory capacity " earning in the region of £ 500,000 a year.

blinding

The British politicians looted their expenses (and God knows what else that we don't even know about)

Then they looted the public finances for their dodgy banker puppet masters.

Its amazing how quickly they can get the recent street looters into jail but they mostly did not resever this treatment for their own looting.

The examples above are relevent to Ireland bar the street looters.

Looting's okay for TD's/MP's and dodgy bankers but your ordinary riif raff gets jailing pretty damn quick.

Some looters are more equal than other looters ! ! !

Inverse to the power of one!

Two people have summed it up already in this thread:

• The legal system is as agile as a turtle on valium
• White collar fraudsters can afford expensive representation to turn the turtle on it's back.

Add to that this country is built on the status quo, even if a man is a fraudster, his political value is placed before what is right and the price of action is considered too inconvenient and expensive to challenge him.

I just had an epiphany earlier on, after being at home for holidays on a short stint, I'd heard more lies interlaced with gossip then I have anywhere else I have been on this planet...and I've been around. Says it all really.