Government lock up granny for non payment of fine

nesf

karkhanas wrote: »

It is perfectly legitimate to bring the bankers into every debate like this whilst there is an apparent lack of will on behalf of the authorities to properly investigate any and all possible wrongdoing by a number of institutions and individuals in Ireland.

Only if people have absolutely no understanding of law or the difficulty in prosecuting white collar crime. Now considering most people have little to no knowledge of the former and the latter is only selectively understood at best normally it's not surprising that we see the bankers brought up in every thread but really it's far from legitimate on any logical grounds. If for a second you think prosecuting someone for non-payment of fines is remotely similar to prosecuting someone for complex financial mismanagement then really I worry about you.

None of this excuses the slowness of the investigations into the banks of course.

karkhanas

nesf wrote: »

Only if people have absolutely no understanding of law or the difficulty in prosecuting white collar crime. Now considering most people have little to no knowledge of the former and the latter is only selectively understood at best normally it's not surprising that we see the bankers brought up in every thread but really it's far from legitimate on any logical grounds.

As long as the perception exists that justice is tiered in our society then people will be comparing every little injustice, perceived or otherwise, to the treatment of the bankers. Whether or not it is actually legitimate is irrelevant.

People think it is.

When the current parties go the country at the next election there will be a sizeable number of people who will vote based on the belief that the current government gave a free ride to certain people and institutions. Relevance, reality and truth are fine but they do not always translate into votes on the ground. So like it or not, people are going to reference the bankers at every turn.

nesf wrote: »

If for a second you think prosecuting someone for non-payment of fines is remotely similar to prosecuting someone for complex financial mismanagement then really I worry about you.

None of this excuses the slowness of the investigations into the banks of course.

I make it quite clear that I do not think prosecuting someone for non payment of fines is in anyway similar to prosecuting someone for financial mismanagement.

But I would appreciate if you did not make statements in regards how you feel towards me. I do not need your 'worry' and I have reported the above comment, I feel it is an attempt to undermine my opinion by equating me with a person who is not wholly competent.

AlekSmart

karkhanas wrote: »

.

People think it is.

When the current parties go the country at the next election there will be a sizeable number of people who will vote based on the belief that the current government gave a free ride to certain people and institutions. Relevance, reality and truth are fine but they do not always translate into votes on the ground. So like it or not, people are going to reference the bankers at every turn.

But I would appreciate if you did not make statements in regards how you feel towards me. I do not need your 'worry' and I have reported the above comment, I feel it is an attempt to undermine my opinion by equating me with a person who is not wholly competent.

A very dubious assertion I feel.

Since the visit to Mr Lenihans house,a great deal of investigation and comment has gone into the events which led to Ireland Teo becoming so emasculated.

Perhaps Karkhanas is equating these "people",whom he/she suggests will reference everything against "The Bankers" with the majority of the electorate....perhaps-perhaps not,and for sure not as cut and dried as the retort would suggest.

Lack of interest and a total ignorance of the principles of "Greater Good" are what have marked Irish Electorates out for our 90 years of Self-Governance..so when quoting "The Bankers" offer a sector of this electorate some form of moral get-out-jail card,they will grasp it with glee.

The rest of us will enquire,assess and make our own mind up.

So,I'm afraid I'll go with nesf on this one...:(

karkhanas

AlekSmart wrote: »

A very dubious assertion I feel.

Since the visit to Mr Lenihans house,a great deal of investigation and comment has gone into the events which led to Ireland Teo becoming so emasculated.

Perhaps Karkhanas is equating these "people",whom he/she suggests will reference everything against "The Bankers" with the majority of the electorate....perhaps-perhaps not,and for sure not as cut and dried as the retort would suggest.

Lack of interest and a total ignorance of the principles of "Greater Good" are what have marked Irish Electorates out for our 90 years of Self-Governance..so when quoting "The Bankers" offer a sector of this electorate some form of moral get-out-jail card,they will grasp it with glee.

The rest of us will enquire,assess and make our own mind up.

So,I'm afraid I'll go with nesf on this one...:(

It is a reality that people will reference the bankers wherever possible. This thread has ample proof of that.

For the record I do not think that there is any connection between this woman and her actions and the bankers, but my point is that relevance to the issue is not a strong point in the minds of many of the voters out there. I think you have taken me up wrong and quite possibly that other poster has as well.

I am not saying that it is right to bring up bankers and any real or perceived financial irregularities in certain institutions but that you cannot seriously think that people will not equate the apparent differences in how people appeared to be treated by the law. I think that whilst people hold these views and whilst there appears to be no real will to investigate what happened in regards such things as the behaviour of certain individuals people will feel perfectly justified in holding up two examples of what is believed to be the difference in how people are treated by the state. It is very similar to remarking on the length of the sentence given to the guy who imported the garlic and sentences given to sex offenders.

Like is or not, this issue resonates with people, especially people who are not inclined to, as you say ''enquire,assess and make our own mind up'' hence the fact it is being used to sell copies of the Herald.

nesf

karkhanas wrote: »

I make it quite clear that I do not think prosecuting someone for non payment of fines is in anyway similar to prosecuting someone for financial mismanagement.

But I would appreciate if you did not make statements in regards how you feel towards me. I do not need your 'worry' and I have reported the above comment, I feel it is an attempt to undermine my opinion by equating me with a person who is not wholly competent.

You made a general point, I made a general point. The phrasing was meant to be aimed generally not at you particularly. Apologies if it caused offense.

To be clear I don't feel anything towards you. Really, you haven't crossed my thoughts at all.

karkhanas

nesf wrote: »

You made a general point, I made a general point. The phrasing was meant to be aimed generally not at you particularly. Apologies if it caused offense.

To be clear I don't feel anything towards you. Really, you haven't crossed my thoughts at all.

I might take your apology as being sincere if you did not then try make me out as some sort of a non entity.

You wrote the above post, I did cross your mind and you obviously do have some sort of feeling towards me.

I'd prefer you didn't reply to this, I've only joined this website and am not interested in debating anything other than political points thank you.

Have a good day.

Godge

karkhanas wrote: »

It is a reality that people will reference the bankers wherever possible. This thread has ample proof of that.

For the record I do not think that there is any connection between this woman and her actions and the bankers, but my point is that relevance to the issue is not a strong point in the minds of many of the voters out there. I think you have taken me up wrong and quite possibly that other poster has as well.

I am not saying that it is right to bring up bankers and any real or perceived financial irregularities in certain institutions but that you cannot seriously think that people will not equate the apparent differences in how people appeared to be treated by the law. I think that whilst people hold these views and whilst there appears to be no real will to investigate what happened in regards such things as the behaviour of certain individuals people will feel perfectly justified in holding up two examples of what is believed to be the difference in how people are treated by the state. It is very similar to remarking on the length of the sentence given to the guy who imported the garlic and sentences given to sex offenders.

Like is or not, this issue resonates with people, especially people who are not inclined to, as you say ''enquire,assess and make our own mind up'' hence the fact it is being used to sell copies of the Herald.

All well and good but you do accept that there is any connection between this woman and the bankers so you are generally in agreement with nesf.

Now people may feel justified in holding them up as two examples, they are people who unlike yourself, myself and nesf are people who are emotionally reacting to something rather than rationally reacting to something.

There is a lot of misdirected anger and angst out there as well as a huge collective failure to accept responsibility for both individual stupidity in financial issues and that the bailouts were legally brought in by a government we elected.

johnnyskeleton

zenno wrote: »

@ johnnyskeleton

Was she even given the option ? no, as far as i know, so what makes you think she wouldn't do this community service over a prison sentence? i'd say she would most definitely do the community service than go to prison.

You were making the general point rather than this specific case but in any event, the issue is that a court decides the appropriate sentence and if the person does not comply voluntarily (whether fine or c/s) the enforcement mechanism is the default in prison instead. Maybe having a deduction from welfare etc would be a better option than jail, but that's not really in place yet.

To answer your point about the specific lady - how do you know that community service is suitable for her? A judge heard what she was doing - selling contraband or goods without a licence - and decided that the appropriate sentence was for her to pay back someone of the money she made this way by means of a fine. Community service is suitable for minor assaults etc, but is it the appropriate punishment for financial/commercial offences?

Cody Pomeray

nesf wrote: »

OIf for a second you think prosecuting someone for non-payment of fines is remotely similar to prosecuting someone for complex financial mismanagement then really I worry about you.

Without wanting to speak for that poster, it is perfectly legitimate to comment on "an apparent lack of will on behalf of the authorities to properly investigate any and all possible wrongdoing by a number of institutions and individuals in Ireland."

That is not the same as equating unpaid fines with allegations of white collar crime. It's a question of the state's motivation to administer justice in an even handed, uniform way.

Godge

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Without wanting to speak for that poster, it is perfectly legitimate to comment on "an apparent lack of will on behalf of the authorities to properly investigate any and all possible wrongdoing by a number of institutions and individuals in Ireland."

That is not the same as equating unpaid fines with allegations of white collar crime. It's a question of the state's motivation to administer justice in an even handed, uniform way.

But you are juxtaposing one situation where there has been a court finding that there has been a breach of the relevant legislation and a suitable sentence is being imposed with another situation where nobody knows whether any law has been broken.

They are not comparable.

Now if you had a situation where say Fingleton has been prosecuted for his failures but Fitzpatrick had not, at least you would be on the same issue.

AlekSmart

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You were making the general point rather than this specific case but in any event, the issue is that a court decides the appropriate sentence and if the person does not comply voluntarily (whether fine or c/s) the enforcement mechanism is the default in prison instead. Maybe having a deduction from welfare etc would be a better option than jail, but that's not really in place yet.

To answer your point about the specific lady - how do you know that community service is suitable for her? A judge heard what she was doing - selling contraband or goods without a licence - and decided that the appropriate sentence was for her to pay back someone of the money she made this way by means of a fine. Community service is suitable for minor assaults etc, but is it the appropriate punishment for financial/commercial offences?

Could it be that the Judge,in this case,made a good call ?

http://www.herald.ie/news/grieving-gran-out-of-jail-in-time-for-tragic-sisters-mass-29534325.html

But Mrs Teeling has now paid €2,500 of the total €4,000 fine – allowing her to be released after spending a week behind bars.

Mrs Teeling's fines date back several years and relate to breaches of casual trading laws involving tobacco.

Although,one could well ask how "several years" worth of fines came to be accumulated without some custodial being invoked somewhat earlier ??

Cody Pomeray

Godge wrote: »

But you are juxtaposing one situation where there has been a court finding that there has been a breach of the relevant legislation and a suitable sentence is being imposed with another situation where nobody knows whether any law has been broken.

They are not comparable.

Juxtaposition is not synonymous with comparison. I am not comparing the two offences. I am commenting on priority and the allocation of legal resources.

It is fair and legitimate to comment on priorities and resources. I don't doubt that this couple are in the wrong.

State agencies ought to prioritise and prosecutors should be employed to arraign those who commit true criminal offences, and not these regulatory offenses which could easily be dealt with in a more sensible and efficient manner.

djpbarry

karkhanas wrote: »

It is perfectly legitimate to bring the bankers into every debate like this whilst there is an apparent lack of will on behalf of the authorities to properly investigate any and all possible wrongdoing by a number of institutions and individuals in Ireland.

And how do you know there is an apparent "lack of will"? Bear in mind that, as far as I am aware, three former Anglo directors have had formal criminal charges brought against them and are due to appear in court.