Anglo Tapes

golfwallah

Interesting development whereby 200 people have handed in a letter to the Gardai demanding charges against 3 Anglo staff members, under S6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft & Fraud Offences) Act 2001:
http://www.thejournal.ie/jail-the-bankers-protest-977632-Jul2013/?utm_source=facebook_short

I hope they get some measure of success and, if this doesn't work, someone will eventually find a way to make these guys pay.

Mr.Micro

golfwallah wrote: »

Interesting development whereby 200 people have handed in a letter to the Gardai demanding charges against 3 Anglo staff members, under S6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft & Fraud Offences) Act 2001:
http://www.thejournal.ie/jail-the-bankers-protest-977632-Jul2013/?utm_source=facebook_short

I hope they get some measure of success and, if this doesn't work, someone will eventually find a way to make these guys pay.

I doubt it. Some of the boys at Anglo are already trying to slide( slither) away.

Anglo executives' trial may have been 'jeopardised', court told

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0703/460382-anglo-irish-trial/

Make one wonder what these disclosures are...... tapes?

BuilderPlumber

Deleted User wrote: »

Many people have died as a result of what went on at Anglo and the wider financial catastrophe which it helped bring about, just not with as much fanfare in the media. Suicide and deaths through poverty, stress etc have occurred as a direct result of what was done, not to mention emigration on a mass scale tearing families apart and creating dangerous levels of depression.

I seem to remember a high profile case of a (low level) Anglo worker committing suicide a few years back, at the height of the revelations about constant bank bailouts. That was directly attributed to the stress as a result of public hatred which was being directed at Anglo and its employees at the time, many of whom had no hand act or part in the decisions which were made by senior management.

This is what makes them so revolting. People got depressed, sick and died because of these banksters and the politicians who protected them. I would like to see who the hell else was involved and what really was/is running this place. Who the hell are Anglo tied up with and why are all the politicians so afraid of going against it? Is it that the drug dealers own the bank and politicians are afraid of them? or is it that the politicians have invested their fortunes into it and risk being ruined themselves? or is it the politicians laundered money and committed offences that helped organised crime?

Whatever FF, FG and Labour are ALL hiding I would like to know. Let us see what happens in the next few weeks: who are the big names Paul Williams mentioned? I guarantee he knows the link between organised crime, the Jintos, the other political parties and the grand deal they all made on Good Friday 1998 to persuade the Jintos to lay down (or more like it hide) their guns (in exchange perhaps for a blind eye to be turned to their common or garden organised crime and a money laundering service via the banksters). It is very significant that a reporter normally associated with news about drug dealers and organised gangland criminality is also the one gives us the stories of the Anglo tapes. I would bet anything that Anglo Irish Bank and its banksters were the lifeline to this country's gangsters (it is already known that the Italian mafia laundered money through an Austrian outlet of Anglo). The fact that Ireland to all intents and purposes is a 'state sponsor of terrorism' would not look good to come out either.

Floppybits

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

This is what makes them so revolting. People got depressed, sick and died because of these banksters and the politicians who protected them. I would like to see who the hell else was involved and what really was/is running this place. Who the hell are Anglo tied up with and why are all the politicians so afraid of going against it?.

This is the reason why there should be no oireachtas enquiry. The politicians and their parties are up to the necks in this Anglo carry on. The politicians would prefer this Anglo thing to just go away.

If there is going to be an oireachtas enquiry then every politician needs to come clean about their dealings or involvement in Anglo.

Noreen1

Floppybits wrote: »

This is the reason why there should be no oireachtas enquiry. The politicians and their parties are up to the necks in this Anglo carry on. The politicians would prefer this Anglo thing to just go away.

If there is going to be an oireachtas enquiry then every politician needs to come clean about their dealings or involvement in Anglo.

There should be no Oireachtas enquiry, because it will not answer the questions the Irish people want answered.

The fact that so many Politicians are demanding one is certainly cause for grave suspicion of said Politicians, imo.

They're marketing this enquiry as a public relations sop, to make it appear as if they're doing something - while what they're actually doing is ensuring that the full facts are not exposed, nor will it bring us any closer to justice.

An Oireachtas enquiry can only make findings against sitting Politicians.
It cannot make findings against, or "destroy the good name of" - anyone else.
Which is entirely useless as a means of getting to the truth about what happened either within the Banks, or what brought about the bank Guarantee.

It's a cynical exercise in "Don't tell the Plebs!" imo.
As such, it makes me even more suspicious of "Politics":rolleyes: in this Country!

Floppybits

Noreen1 wrote: »

There should be no Oireachtas enquiry, because it will not answer the questions the Irish people want answered.

The fact that so many Politicians are demanding one is certainly cause for grave suspicion of said Politicians, imo.

They're marketing this enquiry as a public relations sop, to make it appear as if they're doing something - while what they're actually doing is ensuring that the full facts are not exposed, nor will it bring us any closer to justice.

An Oireachtas enquiry can only make findings against sitting Politicians.
It cannot make findings against, or "destroy the good name of" - anyone else.
Which is entirely useless as a means of getting to the truth about what happened either within the Banks, or what brought about the bank Guarantee.

It's a cynical exercise in "Don't tell the Plebs!" imo.
As such, it makes me even more suspicious of "Politics":rolleyes: in this Country!

I agree Noreen, I dont trust the politicians of this country at anything. The problem this country has is that they relationship between politics and business is way too close and this prevents politicians bring in the proper regulations to make sure that businesses behave properly.

Slideshowbob

ah indeed, as I was wondering on this thread when they surfaced .............

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0704/460475-anglo/

Mr.Micro

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Why though as the regulator is the Central Bank only hearing those tapes now?

My post of the other day.

Mr Doherty this morning said "serious questions" have been raised given Mr Noonan and the Central Bank were unaware until recently that the telephone recordings existed.

Mr Noonan also says that the Joint Special Liquidators appointed to wind up the IBRC have written to all parties whom they know had access to the tapes, including civil litigants, advising them that they are taking the leaks very seriously.

Yet the Central Bank appears to have known nothing about them, but several other parties knew about or had/have them?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0704/460475-anglo/

BuilderPlumber

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

...Who the hell are Anglo tied up with and why are all the politicians so afraid of going against it?

I would bet that key figures in our political class from this current FG government and the previous several FF governments (many of whom are still in receipt of state payments of one form or another) were grossly negligent, or possibly even willfully complicit in what happened with our banks.

To someone in the upper echelons of political life in Ireland, where there is a long history of successfully sweeping things under carpets, and where outside the door there is a disaffected cynical and politically jaded public, liable to be poked into occasional fits of anger by our reductionist tabloid media, the prospect their negligence being made public would be terrifying enough to make self preservation their only goal, and to do away with any notion of delivering the truth. They will do anything in their power (which is considerable) to avoid being seen as complicit in all this.

Furthermore, i would guess that there is direct pressure on government from within the upper echelons of the public service, the senior officials in the dept of finance, central bank, etc, who were all directly involved in the crisis in a period spanning the reign of several different FF and FG administrations. These people are equally as culpable and self interested in the truth of their ineptitude not getting out, and are the life blood of the government. They formulate the policies, do the research, do the actual work involved in running the country beyond delivering speeches. They run things behind the scenes, and as a group they hold enormous power.

The power these two groups and their politically appointed senior gardai and judges hold over us to decide what happens in a situation such as we are facing at the moment with bank corruption is almost total. The biggest challenge for them is how to manipulate the system in such a way as to allow them to pay lip service to delivering truth and justice in order to maintain their public mandate to govern us, while at the same time discreetly doing everything in their power to undermine the full and unvarnished facts of the matter from emerging.

How do they achieve this?

• Commission reports, which take six months to a year or more to undertake while the public gaze focuses on something else, then wait for a big news day to announce their completion, so they make little or no media waves. Then send them to the appropriate minister for a period of "consideration" (shelving, for as long as you can reasonably get away with, while everyone either forgets or stops caring).

• Undermine any official police investigation by means of lack of funds, expertise, equipment, selective press leakage, etc.

• Call for a full and frank inquiry to be set up so that the truth can be fully established, but then give a quango or other ineffective or partisan group some narrow terms of reference, limited powers of investigation, limited resources, and an open ended timeframe. If any complaints regarding delays come up, make reference to due process and to the importance of the group being allowed the time and space needed to complete their (endless and inconclusive) work.

• Create a system of freedom of information requests that is so time consuming, expensive, and admin heavy that it makes exposition and compilation of facts in a timely and pertinent manner by any outside entity practically impossible to all but the most skilled and well resourced groups in media and communications

• Bestow government contracts, political favours, and general financial good fortune on the key decision makers within those same media and communications companies so as to keep the likelihood of unfavourable press coverage or revelations against you low. Subtly pressure and threaten those who you can't buy off by means of litigation, costs, or other obstacles to the financial success of their organization (in the case of companies) or career prospects (in the case of individuals). In order to do this, usurp various state institutions such as the Gardai, Revenue, DPP, etcetera at will.

Successive Irish governments have done all of the above and more.

realitykeeper

Today on the radio the government issued a statement effectively saying the Anglo tapes could jeopardize legal proceedings and we should all be very careful not to interfere with the criminal justice system. Does this mean the government are not going to ride the public inquiry gravy train at our expense after all? Hurrah!

Mr.Micro

realitykeeper wrote: »

Today on the radio the government issued a statement effectively saying the Anglo tapes could jeopardize legal proceedings and we should all be very careful not to interfere with the criminal justice system. Does this mean the government are not going to ride the public inquiry gravy train at our expense after all? Hurrah!

Indeed, there appears to be quite a few parties that have the tapes and some of those people might be only too happy to jeopardize legal proceedings. How they came to get what is evidence is another days work. May be that the release of the tapes after all was/is done just to do that..... oh cynical me.

maninasia

Mr.Micro wrote: »

My post of the other day.







Yet the Central Bank appears to have known nothing about them, but several other parties knew about or had/have them?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0704/460475-anglo/

How could the Central Bank know nothing about these tapes though? Supposedly it's common practice.

The Central Bank doesn't really want outsiders to be delving into the details, as I'm sure there are many embarrassing revelations waiting to be discovered

Cody Pomeray

realitykeeper wrote: »

Today on the radio the government issued a statement effectively saying the Anglo tapes could jeopardize legal proceedings and we should all be very careful not to interfere with the criminal justice system

I think it's reasonable to be sceptical about that statement. I think the DPP was between a rock and a hard place on her fair warning on the pre-trial publicity of potential evidence.

However, the Government seem to be pursuing a far broader line on this, and I think it's reasonable to question the veracity of their concerns. Although there is a possibility of publicity delaying a trial, there is no legal reason to believe it will actually collapse a trial, or render a fair trial impossible.
As the British Lord Chief Justice said after Rosemary West denounced the publicity before her trial (and I'm paraphrasing), if you bury a load of women in your back garden, you should expect a media backlash. The equivalent principle should apply here, and history tells us it does.

So why are the Government suggesting we stop going on about these tapes? Embarrassment? Political sensitivities in Europe? Maybe. Unlikely to revolve around legitimate legal concerns, imo.

squod

Noreen1 wrote: »

An Oireachtas enquiry can only make findings against sitting Politicians.
It cannot make findings against, or "destroy the good name of" - anyone else.
Which is entirely useless as a means of getting to the truth about what happened either within the Banks, or what brought about the bank Guarantee.

The head of Independent media is on t'day FM. He says theres more tapes due, now with voices of the central bank. In his own words he describes how these tapes reveal what tactics were used to ''deceive Lenihan''.

I would have laughed if it wasn't so serious. We're seeing a play here to cover up or make a muddle of the truth.

''Inquiry'' is what we need just to find out who's mad in the head enough to think people will believe this stuff.

thebman

squod wrote: »

The head of Independent media is on t'day FM. He says theres more tapes due, now with voices of the central bank. In his own words he describes how these tapes reveal what tactics were used to ''deceive Lenihan''.

I would have laughed if it wasn't so serious. We're seeing a play here to cover up or make a muddle of the truth.

''Inquiry'' is what we need just to find out who's mad in the head enough to think people will believe this stuff.

He also said the tapes were gone over by a legal team to make sure they didn't release any sensitive information that could jeopardize a court case directly contradicting Michael Noonan and saying he didn't understand why he said that.

They have said several times, the stuff they are releasing jeprodize is the least explosive stuff (though possibly just saying this to keep people on the hook for what comes next) and that they have heald back on releasing that stuff.

I think Noonan is having a laugh and making some very questionable statements.

Noreen1

squod wrote: »

The head of Independent media is on t'day FM. He says theres more tapes due, now with voices of the central bank. In his own words he describes how these tapes reveal what tactics were used to ''deceive Lenihan''.

I would have laughed if it wasn't so serious. We're seeing a play here to cover up or make a muddle of the truth.

''Inquiry'' is what we need just to find out who's mad in the head enough to think people will believe this stuff.

What's the point, though?

If they can't/wont tell us what this enquiry reveals - then why bother?

If they were considering a public enquiry, I'd say fair enough - the fact that they are so determined to only consider the most limited form of enquiry is grave cause for concern, imo.

squod

Noreen1 wrote: »

What's the point, though?

If they can't/wont tell us what this enquiry reveals - then why bother?

If they were considering a public enquiry, I'd say fair enough - the fact that they are so determined to only consider the most limited form of enquiry is grave cause for concern, imo.

Sure this is like public inquiry. We get told what happened, the scandal is revealed piece by piece so as not to cause immediate uproar and then no-one goes to jail.

Only difference between this and an inquiry is that we only have to wait five years for the tapes to get released and not fifteen. Win! Fianna Fails mouthpiece makes a few bob selling copies of their' paper. All those involved in the fraud get to laugh at us while we get led down the garden path. Lovely.

Noreen1

No. We get told whatever they want us to hear - the rest will be withheld on the grounds of "destroying someones good name".

So, basically, a bunch of TDs will decide what the plebs get to hear - and what the plebs get to hear will, I fear, depend on which party is in power, and which politician is too big to throw to the lions.

In other words - an exercise in obfuscation!

We deserve better, and we're entitled to better!!
We deserve the whole, unvarnished truth - and we shouldn't settle for anything less.:mad:

Scofflaw

Noreen1 wrote: »

No. We get told whatever they want us to hear - the rest will be withheld on the grounds of "destroying someones good name".

So, basically, a bunch of TDs will decide what the plebs get to hear - and what the plebs get to hear will, I fear, depend on which party is in power, and which politician is too big to throw to the lions.

In other words - an exercise in obfuscation!

We deserve better, and we're entitled to better!!
We deserve the whole, unvarnished truth - and we shouldn't settle for anything less.:mad:

In a sense, we're always being told what someone wants us to hear. I think it's pretty obvious the Indo is telling a story with these tapes, and that the tapes they release are fairly carefully selected to tell that story. Again, I'm no fan of Drumm, but I think he's probably right that he's being fitted up here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, I'm no fan of Drumm, but I think he's probably right that he's being fitted up here.

Why?

Why is that likely as a matter of probability?

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Why?

Why is that likely as a matter of probability?

Whether something is "likely" is always "a matter of probability". Why do I think it's likely? Because some of the tapes are rather noticeably of little relevance to anything but making Drumm look bad - they contain nothing substantive at all. The accompanying Indo commentary then picks out part of what's said to do the same thing.

Sure, perhaps it's just that much of what's on the tapes is tedious, so they've just picked anything that sounds remotely juicy even if it's meaningless, but journalism without an agenda is generally restricted to the sports section.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why do I think it's likely? Because some of the tapes are rather noticeably of little relevance to anything but making Drumm look bad - they contain nothing substantive at all. The accompanying Indo commentary then picks out part of what's said to do the same thing.

That response doesn't establish a proposition that Drumm is being "fitted up" as "likely" at all.

You're relying on the fact that a small number of the tapes portray personality flaws, as opposed to raising corporate governance or legal issues.

That may be true. But it doesn't follow that it is probable, or "likely" that there are other tapes which contradict any personality issues a listener might deduce.
To present that as "likely" requires the likelihood to have been plucked from thin air.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That response doesn't establish a proposition that Drumm is being "fitted up" as "likely" at all.

You're relying on the fact that a small number of the tapes portray personality flaws, as opposed to raising corporate governance or legal issues.

That may be true. But it doesn't follow that it is probable, or "likely" that there are other tapes which contradict any personality issues a listener might deduce.

I guess it's possible he's particularly nice to elderly neighbours, or loves his dog, or whatever, but I doubt that work tapes would show any such thing - nor does a claim that tapes may have been included simply to show Drumm as an unlikeable person require the existence of tapes showing his softer side. It merely requires that tapes have been included that only "portray personality flaws, as opposed to raising corporate governance or legal issues".

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

To present that as "likely" requires the likelihood to have been plucked from thin air.

Or you could just say you disagree, of course.

amused,
Scofflaw

Mr.Micro

Scofflaw wrote: »

In a sense, we're always being told what someone wants us to hear. I think it's pretty obvious the Indo is telling a story with these tapes, and that the tapes they release are fairly carefully selected to tell that story. Again, I'm no fan of Drumm, but I think he's probably right that he's being fitted up here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Poor Drumm. Not a bit of sympathy for him. He bolted, leaving such a mess. If he feels hard done by, think about all those affected by the crisis as a result of Anglo and all the other banks. The disparaging tapes, that we cringe at, is a small price for Drumm who had his cake and ate it. I do not doubt that selected tapes are being used to make him the fall guy, but politics is a dirty business.

Cody Pomeray

Scofflaw wrote: »

nor does a claim that tapes may have been included simply to show Drumm as an unlikeable person require the existence of tapes showing his softer side. It merely requires that tapes have been included that only "portray personality flaws, as opposed to raising corporate governance or legal issues".

No, the term "fitted up" would seem to imply that characteristics are attributed to Drumm which do not fit, or that there is some sort of artifical construction thereof.

To say that is it is "likely" that Drumm has been "fitted up" in that sense is not based on any facts, and does require that some alternative, pleasant side to his character exists.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No, the term "fitted up" would seem to imply that characteristics are attributed to Drumm which do not fit, or that there is some sort of artifical construction thereof.

To say that is it is "likely" that Drumm has been "fitted up" in that sense is not based on any facts, and does require that some alternative, pleasant side to his character exists.

Er, no, only if one has the wrong end of the stick. Drumm has claimed he's being fitted up as the villain of the piece in order to distract attention from other people with more questions to answer, and this is the point where I would agree with him.

Again, a request for clarification is sometimes a faster route to discovery of what was actually being said than taking issue with what you incorrectly believe was being said. In this case, I presumed, evidently incorrectly, that people would either know what Drumm had claimed, or find out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Noreen1

Scofflaw wrote: »

In a sense, we're always being told what someone wants us to hear. I think it's pretty obvious the Indo is telling a story with these tapes, and that the tapes they release are fairly carefully selected to tell that story. Again, I'm no fan of Drumm, but I think he's probably right that he's being fitted up here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

Whether something is "likely" is always "a matter of probability". Why do I think it's likely? Because some of the tapes are rather noticeably of little relevance to anything but making Drumm look bad - they contain nothing substantive at all. The accompanying Indo commentary then picks out part of what's said to do the same thing.

Sure, perhaps it's just that much of what's on the tapes is tedious, so they've just picked anything that sounds remotely juicy even if it's meaningless, but journalism without an agenda is generally restricted to the sports section.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agreed.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Poor Drumm. Not a bit of sympathy for him. He bolted, leaving such a mess. If he feels hard done by, think about all those affected by the crisis as a result of Anglo and all the other banks. The disparaging tapes, that we cringe at, is a small price for Drumm who had his cake and ate it. I do not doubt that selected tapes are being used to make him the fall guy, but politics is a dirty business.

The fact that I suspect that Drumm is telling (at least partly) the truth, doesn't mean that I have any sympathy for him.

I just think that what he says fits in rather neatly with my personal opinion that we are not being told the whole truth, and, that certain individuals certainly have motive enough to need a fall guy, if my suspicions are correct.

Cody Pomeray

I am not answering David Drumm's claim. I am responding to your claim that it is "likely" that Drumm is being "fitted up", which is a term introduced by you, and which suggests a portrayal which does not 'fit', specifically relating to Drumm's personality, which you specifically mentioned.

Trying to turn this around and reappointing it as a statement of Drumm's role in the financial crisis is visible nonsense to anyone who reads the past few posts. What happened to this being about his personality? What's changed?

Mr.Micro

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Poor Drumm. Not a bit of sympathy for him. He bolted, leaving such a mess...I do not doubt that selected tapes are being used to make him the fall guy, but politics is a dirty business.

I have my own theories, but without a full picture of exactly what tapes are going to be released by the indo (apparently there are more on the way) and details on what else was leaked here and by whom, it's difficult to tell what the agenda is here, and who's agenda it is.

There are lots of possibilities. Could it be Gardai leaking some of the more incendiary sections of recordings to the media in order to inflame public opinion and create renewed pressure for action? Politicians selectively leaking tapes to show the management of Anglo in such a light as to give the impression that their reckless behaviour was soley responsible for our disaster, thus diverting attention from some equally culpable public officials? The renewed vilification of Drumm's name in the media in order to create a central, easily digestible" hate figure or straw man for the public, so that a pre-arranged extradition or scalping of him can be hailed as a political victory?

Who knows, perhaps this leakage is simply facilitating trial in the court of public opinion of many key figures who are likely never to be sanctioned by whichever toothless Oireachtas inquiry ultimately "investigates" this matter?

We're operating in an information vacuum at present, and without a full and complete picture of what was said on all the tapes from all of the banks which are in existence, as well as a paper trail from very many key meetings with government officials over the years, we can only hope to ever get a particular partisan spin on the actual events

Sadly, i doubt that such a complete paper trail ever existed, and if it did i would be very surprised to see it still full and complete now, five or more years later. There has been a lot of time for covering tracks since the events of 2008.

Enda Kenny wrote:

As I said on so many occasions now, as Taoiseach of the country, if I meet the town clerk from Enniscorthy, notes are taken of what’s happened here. This was the single biggest financial transaction ever made in the history of our State and there are no papers of any consequence relevant to that in the Department of the Taoiseach...

That's a heavy political dig a the Fianna Fail administration of five years ago certainly, and I'm no fan of Kenny, in fact i think it's irresponsible to play political point scoring on a matter of such enormous consequence, but regardless of that, the man has made a salient point.

What was going on in Cowen's administration to allow such an enormous decision to be taken in a way that, in retrospect, would be almost beyond scrutiny? Why was it going on, who was right and wrong in the cold light of day, who lied, and who stood to benefit as a result of what happened? A head on a plate is not enough here, be it David Drumms or anyone elses. There is a conspiracy afoot, and we deserve the full truth of what was done in order to get to the bottom of it, rather than just being satisfied with the scalp of a few high profile fall guys and being told to move on and put it all behind us.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I am not answering David Drumm's claim. I am responding to your claim that it is "likely" that Drumm is being "fitted up", which is a term introduced by you, and which suggests a portrayal which does not 'fit', specifically relating to Drumm's personality, which you specifically mentioned.

Trying to turn this around and reappointing it as a statement of Drumm's role in the financial crisis is visible nonsense to anyone who reads the past few posts. What happened to this being about his personality? What's changed?

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/fit-up

1. to put equipment into a room or building so that it can be used for a particular purpose

2. informal to make it seem that someone is guilty of a crime when they are not

Not sure where your definition of "fitted up" comes from, but I've never seen it used as "portraying someone as having a particular personality". The standard informal use given above is what was meant, which would also be clear from what Drumm has been saying in the last few days - and you could have asked, rather than going off on a wild goose chase after something I never said, and which cannot even be constructed as a possible meaning of what I said except through completely misunderstanding it, either deliberately or accidentally.

cordially,
Scofflaw