Mick Wallace and Clare Daly reportedly arrested at Shannon airport.

bajer101

I have a real pain in my arse listening to people on here having a pop at Wallace and Daly over irrelevant nonsense. Slagging off Clare Daly because you think she is ugly or dresses badly. Going on and on about Wallace's tax affairs and ignoring the actual issues at hand. I'm really beginning to suspect some ulterior motive.

Wallace and Daly can dress however they goddamn please and it is none of your business. They were elected by citizens of this country to represent them and they have been doing that - so get over it. Wallace's company hit trouble and he withheld VAT to keep the company going and to keep people in work. That is a world away from the likes of Callely and Lowry who had people do work for them for free and who committed fraud for their own personal gain.

What Wallace did was wrong, but he has played an absolute blinder since then representing the people who elected him. Keep slagging him and Daly and Ming off. You just keep these threads going and give them more publicity and annoy people like me. I'll just keep jumping in telling you how wrong you are.

blackwhite

bajer101 wrote: »

Wallace and Dal Wallace's company hit trouble and he withheld VAT to keep the company going and to keep people in work. That is a world away from the likes of Callely and Lowry who had people do work for them for free and who committed fraud for their own personal gain.

Glad you can paint such a lovely picture of defrauding the taxpayers of this country in order to keep paying salaries to himself and his son (€289k each per the last accounts that they filed) for a bit longer - that sounds exactly like fraud for personal gain to me.

The VAT that Wallace withheld didn't go to the ordinary employees - the construction workers. In fact, he was deducting money from their pay under the pretence of making pension contributions, and kept that to pump into his own business as well
http://www.pensionsauthority.ie/en/News_Press/News_Press_Archive/Construction_company_director_fined_for_deduction_and_non_remittance_of_pension_contributions_to_the_Construction_Workers_Pension_Scheme_in_a_prosecution_taken_by_The_Pensions_Board.html

It's amazing the amount of people who try to gloss over the stuff Wallace has done, just because they happen to agree with his politics.

If it was a member of one of the "establishment" parties they'd be scrambling around to find their pitchfork.

Yeah_Right

Muahahaha wrote: »

I was aware that certain NZ special forces served in Iraq, reason I heard was that it wouldn't be abnormal as the special forces want action regardless of what the politicians are saying. Not sure how true it is but regardless the point I was making about Helen Clarke standing up to US economic threats still stands. The US were telling NZ that there was no way they were ever getting a Free Trade Agreement if they wouldn't adjust their nuclear stance and allow them to use NZ waters as a base for nuclear powered ships and submarines. Clarke stood firm and at least amongst the New Zealanders I know from having lived there she gained an awful lot of respect from the public for her stance. I was making the point that when it comes to foreign policy relations with the US you can set your stall out like NZ does or you can set it out like we do. At the end of the day NZ will get their Free Trade Agreement (it's now tagged on to Australias agreement so it's a formality at this stage) but at the same time they'll maintain their nuclear stance and no nuclear ships will be using their waters, just the way the public want it. The NZ story is one of democracy and the will of the public triumphing over arrogant US Foreign Policy whilst still getting the FTA they want. The Irish story is one of deference where our spineless government are so scared of the US govt and their threats that they're willing to sell people's human rights off and turn a blind eye. Sure even Eamon Gilmore campaigned on the Shannon issue in opposition, soon changed his tune when he got to power :rolleyes:

Yeah it was NZ special forces, also some logistics and medical teams.

Yes Clarke stood firm but no NZ prime minister would have backed down. It would have been the end of them. Basically I never liked or respected Clarke so there is no chance of me giving her credit for anything

I personally think kiwis are a bit myopic when it comes to the whole nuclear issue. I would be quite happy to have US ships (nuclear powered and nuclear armed) in our ports. I also believe that nuclear power stations are the best option. NZ has a clean/green image and nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly option when compared to coal and gas. However due to a lack of education on the issue and the screaming hippies, as soon as nuclear power is mentioned all you hear is its evil.

Also I would have no issue with rendition flights coming through NZ or if they set up a secret prison somewhere in the country. Maybe on Stewart Island. There is already a US spy base there that collects satellite information.

geeksauce

bajer101 wrote: »

I have a real pain in my arse listening to people on here having a pop at Wallace and Daly over irrelevant nonsense. Slagging off Clare Daly because you think she is ugly or dresses badly. Going on and on about Wallace's tax affairs and ignoring the actual issues at hand. I'm really beginning to suspect some ulterior motive.

Yes Micks tax affairs are only a minor issue!!! :rolleyes: Owes the state millions, robbed from people he had work for him, only minor details. Attempting to pay back some of the taxpayers money he stole by using his salary paid by taxpayers oh the irony.

What ulterior motive are you suspecting exactly, that people can't stand him and want him ousted from the Dail? I couldn't think of anything better for him to be honest, well apart from a spell in Jail of course.

Wallace and Daly can dress however they goddamn please and it is none of your business. They were elected by citizens of this country to represent them and they have been doing that - so get over it. Wallace's company hit trouble and he withheld VAT to keep the company going and to keep people in work. That is a world away from the likes of Callely and Lowry who had people do work for them for free and who committed fraud for their own personal gain.

Really Mick has been representing the people that elected him and how exactly has he represented them, by continuing to break the law? I suppose in reality people did vote for a dodgy criminal and did get a dodgy criminal.

What Wallace did was wrong, but he has played an absolute blinder since then representing the people who elected him. Keep slagging him and Daly and Ming off. You just keep these threads going and give them more publicity and annoy people like me. I'll just keep jumping in telling you how wrong you are.

Played a blinder? How exactly has he done that? I don't remember him doing anything for any of his constituents other than embarrass them on a weekly basis. Maybe you mean he has played a blinder by continuing to remain in his seat despite falling from one controversy to another in between trips to football tournaments and his vineyard.

Banjo String

I suppose in reality people did vote for a dodgy criminal and did get a dodgy criminal.

Serious question.

Has Mick Wallace any criminal convictions?

If not, your post is tripe tbh. Not liking a TD because of his dress sense, or due to how far to the left or right they are, doesn't give grounds to brand them a dodgy criminal.

blackwhite

Banjo String wrote: »

Serious question.

Has Mick Wallace any criminal convictions?

If not, your post is tripe tbh. Not liking a TD because of his dress sense, or due to how far to the left or right they are, doesn't give grounds to brand them a dodgy criminal.

He does.

http://www.thejournal.ie/court-fines-mick-wallace-td-e7000-296680-Dec2011/

Banjo String

blackwhite wrote: »

He does.

http://www.thejournal.ie/court-fines-mick-wallace-td-e7000-296680-Dec2011/

Is that counted as a criminal conviction though?

Ash.J.Williams

Banjo String wrote: »

Is that counted as a criminal conviction though?

no

geeksauce

Banjo String wrote: »

Serious question.

Has Mick Wallace any criminal convictions?

If not, your post is tripe tbh. Not liking a TD because of his dress sense, or due to how far to the left or right they are, doesn't give grounds to brand them a dodgy criminal.

No he hasn't any criminal convictions that I know of anyway, however I still maintain that he is a dodgy criminal. Stealing from people, breaking into airports, not paying your taxes, stealing peoples pensions is all the evidence I need to make up my mind that Mick Wallace is in fact a very untrustworthy character and one that doesn't give a second thought to breaking the law.

And none of that has anything to do with his dress sense or his political beliefs.

Banjo String

geeksauce wrote: »

No he hasn't any criminal convictions that I know of anyway, however I still maintain that he is a dodgy criminal. Stealing from people, breaking into airports, not paying your taxes, stealing peoples pensions is all the evidence I need to make up my mind that Mick Wallace is in fact a very untrustworthy character and one that doesn't give a second thought to breaking the law.

And none of that has anything to do with his dress sense or his political beliefs.

Well then you, by definition must lump Michael Noonan and the FG party into the same pigeon hole.

geeksauce

Banjo String wrote: »

Well then you, by definition must lump Michael Noonan and the FG party into the same pigeon hole.

I would lump anyone that has the history Wallace has into the same hole, unlike some my beliefs are not decided by which party the person does or does not belong to.

I imagine if someone from one of the main parties had the same history as Wallace you would be here banging your drum saying they should be ousted and should be jailed.

And that to me appears to be the main difference here, you think Mick is a grand chap and should be allowed break the law because he is different from those in the main parties, whereas I believe all laws should be applied the same to everyone regardless of political beliefs.

geeksauce

blackwhite wrote: »

He does.

http://www.thejournal.ie/court-fines-mick-wallace-td-e7000-296680-Dec2011/

Funny how he got a fine for that and another local family in Wexford had two people jailed for the same thing. I suppose it just falls to the judge on the day, one gives a fine the other a custodial sentence.

blackwhite

Banjo String wrote: »

Is that counted as a criminal conviction though?

AFAIK it depends on what he was charged with.

Either way, he's been convicted of a fairly serious offence by the Irish Courts system.

Arguing semantics to try and imply otherwise is missing the point.


Would you object so strongly to someone calling Bertie Ahern a criminal?

Ash.J.Williams

geeksauce wrote: »

No he hasn't any criminal convictions that I know of anyway, however I still maintain that he is a dodgy criminal. Stealing from people, breaking into airports, not paying your taxes, stealing peoples pensions is all the evidence I need to make up my mind that Mick Wallace is in fact a very untrustworthy character and one that doesn't give a second thought to breaking the law.

And none of that has anything to do with his dress sense or his political beliefs.

I don't care much for Wallace, but you have twisted every example you have given with severe negative spin.

jjbrien

geeksauce wrote: »

Funny how he got a fine for that and another local family in Wexford had two people jailed for the same thing. I suppose it just falls to the judge on the day, one gives a fine the other a custodial sentence.

I am hoping when he goes to trial for breaking into Shannon he gets the same judge that sent Ivor Callely down. TD's need to be told they are not above the law since they make the law.

eeepaulo

blackwhite wrote: »

Would you object so strongly to someone calling Bertie Ahern a criminal?

No tag whether positive or negative would stick to him

Banjo String

blackwhite wrote: »

AFAIK it depends on what he was charged with.

Either way, he's been convicted of a fairly serious offence by the Irish Courts system.

Arguing semantics to try and imply otherwise is missing the point.


Would you object so strongly to someone calling Bertie Ahern a criminal?

Well. No, it's not semantics.

A criminal record is a criminal record. Not having one means you haven't been branded or convicted as a criminal.

It's (black and white) pardon the pun.

Would that conviction prevent him from entering Australia or the USA?

geeksauce

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I don't care much for Wallace, but you have twisted every example you have given with severe negative spin.

What?????

Twisted every example with negative spin?? What the hell are you talking about?

Let me try twist it with a positive spin just for laughs, Mick Wallace stole pensions from his employees and the Irish taxpayers but reinvested it in the Italian economy as well as Poland and Ukraine so it went to a good cause anyway.

Mick worked so hard doing nothing for his constituents that he needed a break at the World Cup in Brazil just before the Dail broke for the summer, due to severe jet lag poor old Mick became disorientated at the airport and wandered over a fence and onto the runway, apparently he thought he had parked his car there on the way to the World Cup.

Mick forced many people out of work by not paying them money he owed them for work he had hired them to do, but in reality Mick was not pocketing this money himself to fund his many soccer trips abroad or visits to his vineyard, no Mick thought that these people did not want to work and would rather draw the dole so by withholding their money he really did them a favour.

Ah Mick the Saint.

geeksauce

jjbrien wrote: »

I am hoping when he goes to trial for breaking into Shannon he gets the same judge that sent Ivor Callely down. TD's need to be told they are not above the law since they make the law.

Wouldn't hold your breath he seems to be getting away with this type of behaviour for years so will only continue to do so me thinks.

Although it would be very interesting to see what happens if he does get away with it and someone else climbs the fence at an airport. I would nearly try it myself to make a point although wouldn't have the neck to do it in reality.

Banjo String

geeksauce wrote: »

Wouldn't hold your breath he seems to be getting away with this type of behaviour for years so will only continue to do so me thinks.

Although it would be very interesting to see what happens if he does get away with it and someone else climbs the fence at an airport. I would nearly try it myself to make a point although wouldn't have the neck to do it in reality.

Still waiting on the dpp to see what charge (if any) they'll face.

Could be trespass, which will hardly mean penal servitude tbh.

blackwhite

Banjo String wrote: »

Well. No, it's not semantics.

A criminal record is a criminal record. Not having one means you haven't been branded or convicted as a criminal.

It's (black and white) pardon the pun.

Would that conviction prevent him from entering Australia or the USA?

You can be convicted of quite a large number of criminal offences and still be eligible to enter the USA or Australia.


As per usual, you ignore the point that you don't want to hold Wallace to the same standard as you would for an "establishment" politician.

The man defrauded the taxpayers, his own employees, and multiple businesses that did work for him.

During the period covered by both his VAT fraud and his pension contribution fraud, his company paid both him and his son over €250k EACH in salary. Then tries to claim the company was so desperate for cashflow that they could afford to pass across €50k in pension contributions?

Would you accept that kind of behaviour from a Fine Gael TD?

eeepaulo

geeksauce wrote: »

Although it would be very interesting to see what happens if he does get away with it and someone else climbs the fence at an airport. I would nearly try it myself to make a point although wouldn't have the neck to do it in reality.

It is important to use action to attempt to highlight perceived injustice

geeksauce

Banjo String wrote: »

Still waiting on the dpp to see what charge (if any) they'll face.

Could be trespass, which will hardly mean penal servitude tbh.

They will get away without charge, my point was when they do get away it pretty much opens the gates for any nutbag to scale the airport fence and approach planes. A free for all on the runways of Ireland, I for one won't be rushing to get on a plane at any stage in the near future.

Judgement Day

geeksauce wrote: »

They will get away without charge, my point was when they do get away it pretty much opens the gates for any nutbag to scale the airport fence and approach planes. A free for all on the runways of Ireland, I for one won't be rushing to get on a plane at any stage in the near future.

In case you haven't noticed, it's already a free for all on the runways of Ireland - long before Mick Wallace and Claire Daly hopped over the fence at Shannon.

oldyouth

geeksauce wrote: »

Played a blinder? How exactly has he done that? I don't remember him doing anything for any of his constituents other than embarrass them on a weekly basis. Maybe you mean he has played a blinder by continuing to remain in his seat despite falling from one controversy to another in between trips to football tournaments and his vineyard.

1. Mick declared publicly that he was going to get involved in National issues and that he wasn't going to get involve in local issues such as filling bleedin' potholes

2. Mick has attended the Dail and spoken on issues far more than most of the other politicians up there. His mistake was to tell people he was off to the footy, rather than just going. Others skive off and there isn't a word about it.

3. He old his vineyard to his brother and used the money to make payments to his banks.

4. He is his own worst enemy in my opinion

geeksauce

Judgement Day wrote: »

In case you haven't noticed, it's already a free for all on the runways of Ireland - long before Mick Wallace and Claire Daly hopped over the fence at Shannon.

Really never noticed that before, maybe Mick and Claire were just trying to highlight the problem, can't say I ever noticed too many reports of people scaling the fences and approaching planes on runways before.

Must be the media targeting poor Mick and Claire.

geeksauce

oldyouth wrote: »

1. Mick declared publicly that he was going to get involved in National issues and that he wasn't going to get involve in local issues such as filling bleedin' potholes

2. Mick has attended the Dail and spoken on issues far more than most of the other politicians up there. His mistake was to tell people he was off to the footy, rather than just going. Others skive off and there isn't a word about it.

3. He old his vineyard to his brother and used the money to make payments to his banks.

4. He is his own worst enemy in my opinion

1. So he has done nothing then, ok.

2. His mistake was going to the footy while owing the taxman millions and countless other small business people too.

3. He gave his vineyard to his brother to keep it out of reach of the taxman. He is now using taxpayers money to repay the taxpayers.

4. The man is a moron and as crooked as they come.

Ash.J.Williams

I would like to know what is going on exactly in Shannon. No going to do anything about it, but i'd like to know...Sick of this neutrality bullsh1t

oldyouth

geeksauce wrote: »

1. So he has done nothing then, ok.

He has debated countless times on National issues. Just like half the gobdaws up there. I agree, it is just a talking shop

2. His mistake was going to the footy while owing the taxman millions and countless other small business people too.

And speaking in the Dail on those days would change that how?

3. He gave his vineyard to his brother to keep it out of reach of the taxman. He is now using taxpayers money to repay the taxpayers.

He sold it to his brother and the bank took the money directly

4. The man is a moron and as crooked as they come.

He is no moron, he is a convicted criminal

Judgement Day

oldyouth wrote: »

He is no moron, he is a convicted criminal

Putting something in bold does not make it any more correct.