Bank roof "occupied"...then Gardaí beat them up :D

Degsy · 16-05-2010 11:48PM

I have a feeling that violent protests are going to start gaining in popularity in the forseeable future,much as i hate hippies i think this mess the govt created is a bridge too far for a lot of people.

Johnny Foreigner has been rioting his hole off for years now and the irish have a talent for rioting if pushed far enough...this sort of stuff is just the beginning i reckon.

DeVore · 16-05-2010 11:49PM

Cos other banks wouldnt buy them up for a knockdown price??

Sell those loans to the highest bidder. This is a capitalist market, the reason its not working is because some people who should get fried are being protected by their mates in government.

DeV.

Biggins · 16-05-2010 11:51PM

DeVore wrote: »

Cos other banks wouldnt buy them up for a knockdown price??

Sell those loans for 50% of their value to HSBC. This is a capitalist market, the reason its not working is because some people who should get fried are being protected by their mates in government.
DeV.

Aaa, yes, I agree. The still un-named members of the "Golden Circle"
FF aren't too much still in a hurry to say who they are, are they and what connections are between those people and membership of FF!

squod · 16-05-2010 11:56PM

Mark200 wrote: »

I don't for one second buy into the idea that Fianna Fail are "doing their best to destroy this country". They might in general be a bunch of idiots, but that doesn't mean they're trying to be idiots.

Possibly every member of the FF parlimentary party is ''brainier'' than me. Yet I wouldn't be stooopid enough to have extended the full guarantees to Anglo. What you're are trying to do here is convince people that a bunch of highly qualified, highly experienced, well advised professional politicians ''goofed up'', just when it was their' time to shine. That story doesn't wash.

Mark200 wrote: »

I'm sick of hearing the same nonsense over and over.

Like you said, sick of it.

Mark200 wrote: »

"If you're not with the protesters, you're with the bankers" is ridiculous.

I'm also not with the protesters, I can understand their frustrations though.

boboirl · 17-05-2010 12:01AM

squod wrote: »

I'm also not with the protesters, I can understand their frustrations though.

As regards the young peeps that took out mortgages they hadn't a hope in hell in affording anyway, I have zero sympathy... sure the bank were pushing the loans... but there is the side of the borrowers themselves that everyone seems to overlook. They took out unsecure mortgages they could not afford... just as much their fault as the banks imo :mad:

Einhard · 17-05-2010 12:08AM

squod wrote: »

Possibly every member of the FF parlimentary party is ''brainier'' than me. Yet I wouldn't be stooopid enough to have extended the full guarantees to Anglo. What you're are trying to do here is convince people that a bunch of highly qualified, highly experienced, well advised professional politicians ''goofed up'', just when it was their' time to shine. That story doesn't wash.

Many people would agree with you on that point, but it's easy to put forward an opinion with both the benefit of hindsight, and the knowledge that it will never be implemented. As I understand it, the Irish financial sector was teetering on the brink at the time. The major banks had to be saved. I think almost everyone can agree on that point. However, the crisis was so acute that, to guarantee the others whilst allowing Anglo to fall would have negated the positive effects of the guarantee, and generated a massive amount of instability in the system, and a crisis of confidence amongst investors in the financial sector in general. Advocating that the guarantee should not have covered Anglo assumes that its fall would not have had system wide consequences, and I just don't think that's the case. And the risk of either or both of the major two collapsing was probably enough to convice Lenihan to cover Anglo too.

squod · 17-05-2010 12:15AM

boboirl wrote: »

.....but there is the side of the borrowers themselves that everyone seems to overlook. They took out unsecure mortgages they could not afford... just as much their fault as the banks imo :mad:

I keep saying this

squod wrote: »

There was no need to bail Anglo. Never. An extension of the guarantees could have been applied to it for a time to secure some of the deposits, but giving Anglo the full state guarantees? C'mon.

Fine, so it's just as much their faults as the banks. What the hell has that got to do with me?

The government simply didn't need to invole us in Anglos business. They didn't need to but chose to anyway. We're now in a situation where we're responsible for Anglos debts.

They should have let Anglo fail and kept Joe public out of Anglos problems.

Firefox11 · 17-05-2010 12:15AM

Degsy wrote: »

I have a feeling that violent protests are going to start gaining in popularity in the forseeable future,much as i hate hippies i think this mess the govt created is a bridge too far for a lot of people.

Johnny Foreigner has been rioting his hole off for years now and the irish have a talent for rioting if pushed far enough...this sort of stuff is just the beginning i reckon.

Yes. and we have seen what that has done for Greece. People start taking to the streets in numbers causing trouble, Investors and Markets get nervous and pull out, the country finally goes down the Pan.

squod · 17-05-2010 12:22AM

Einhard wrote: »

Many people would agree with you on that point, but it's easy to put forward an opinion with both the benefit of hindsight, and the knowledge that it will never be implemented. As I understand it, the Irish financial sector was teetering on the brink at the time. The major banks had to be saved. I think almost everyone can agree on that point. However, the crisis was so acute that, to guarantee the others whilst allowing Anglo to fall would have negated the positive effects of the guarantee, and generated a massive amount of instability in the system, and a crisis of confidence amongst investors in the financial sector in general. Advocating that the guarantee should not have covered Anglo assumes that its fall would not have had system wide consequences, and I just don't think that's the case. And the risk of either or both of the major two collapsing was probably enough to convice Lenihan to cover Anglo too.

It seems that way. Our government is practically festooned in advisors and brainy people generally. To say that they needed hindsight is misleading.

There's some newspaper articles over here which give opinions on the crisis. Vincent Browne wrote some of them AFAIK.
http://jp-ireland.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!7D84D8D85790AC27!6459.entry

fearcruach · 17-05-2010 12:59AM

squod wrote: »

I keep saying this

Fine, so it's just as much their faults as the banks. What the hell has that got to do with me?

The government simply didn't need to invole us in Anglos business. They didn't need to but chose to anyway. We're now in a situation where we're responsible for Anglos debts.

They should have let Anglo fail and kept Joe public out of Anglos problems.

If Anglo had failed then it would have been a devastating blow to the Irish financial sector.

Look at the damage the failure of Lehmahn Brothers did to the American economy.

Love or hate it, we are all tied together in this free market economy and you can't separate Joe public from it.

squod · 17-05-2010 01:06AM

It was pointed out again last week that the financial fallout would have been considerably less expensive (rising cost of loans, pissed off bond holders etc) than the cost of Anglos bailout.

The world markets wouldn't have given a sh1t if some piddly Irish bank went belly up. Anglo wasn't Lehmahn Brothers.

Einhard · 17-05-2010 01:18AM

squod wrote: »

The world markets wouldn't have given a sh1t if some piddly Irish bank went belly up. Anglo wasn't Lehmahn Brothers.

I'm sorry but this is just economic ignorance. The markets are all interconnected. It's like the butterfly effect. Even the happenings within the most insignificant economy can, and do, have major implications elsewhere. Just look at what happened with Greece recently. It's not exactly a major economic player on the world, or even the European stage, and yet, because of the situation in Greece, the Eurozone members had to scramble together an unprecedented trillion euro package to prevent a possible Euro collapse.

The collapse of Anglo would have had massive implications for the Irish financial sector. Maybe BofI and AIB would have survived it, but the fact is that no one knew then, and no one knows now, even with the benefit of hindsight. Whatever the case though, it's simply not correct to state that an Anglo collapse could have been contained; that systemic damage could have been averted.

Also, Vincent Brown is as partisan a hack as they come. I'd treat his writings on the matter in the same way as I would Roy Keane's opinions of the FAI.

squod · 17-05-2010 01:23AM

Einhard wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is just economic ignorance..........

Banks have crashed before etc.

squod wrote: »

It was pointed out again last week that the financial fallout would have been considerably less expensive (rising cost of loans, pissed off bond holders etc) than the cost of Anglos bailout.

I'll quote myself again. Maybe you'll see what I said last time.

Einhard · 17-05-2010 01:38AM

squod wrote: »

I'll quote myself again. Maybe you'll see what I said last time.

LOL I saw what you said alright, just didn't feel myself bound to respond to every single point you might make. Especially as you haven't exactly returned the courtesy!

But, as you insist...

It was pointed out again last week that the financial fallout would have been considerably less expensive (rising cost of loans, pissed off bond holders etc) than the cost of Anglos bailout.

The major cost of an Anglo collapse wouldn't have been the rise in lending costs or placating angry bondholders, but the massive damage that such a collapse would have inflicted on the entire Irish financial sector. I've re-iterated this several times, and you've yet to respond to it. One only has to note that, post Lehman's, not a single bank of systemic importance was allowed to collapse by a national government. Nobody could have stated for certain that an Anglo bankruptcy would not have precipitated a similar fate in Bank of Ireland and AIB. This would have sunk the economy. And that's why the guarantee was extended to Anglo.

Indeed, even now, 18 months after the initial decision, there is furious debate amongst commentators on what was, and is, the right course of action. Alan Dukes for example, hardly a stooge of the government, believes the action taken was correct, and that a wind down would be a bad option. Others disagree with him of course, but the point is that you're lambasting Lenihan for a decision taken 18 months ago, when even now there's debate raging over whether it was the right one or not.

squod · 17-05-2010 01:48AM

Einhard wrote: »

but the point is that you're lambasting Lenihan for a decision taken 18 months ago, when even now there's debate raging over whether it was the right one or not.

But of course there's a debate. I haven't suggested there isn't. We know what the cost of Anglos bailout is. We knew back then (roughly) what it would cost.

As I pointed out earlier hindsight wasn't needed to make a decission like this, the government is surrounded by advisors and intellectuals generally. They're well able to make these decissions like. I'll quote myself again.

squod wrote: »

Possibly every member of the FF parlimentary party is ''brainier'' than me. Yet I wouldn't be stooopid enough to have extended the full guarantees to Anglo. What you're are trying to do here is convince people that a bunch of highly qualified, highly experienced, well advised professional politicians ''goofed up'', just when it was their' time to shine. That story doesn't wash.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 17-05-2010 01:51AM

davyjose wrote: »

for the last few years I've listened to nothing but internet warriors complaining about the state of the country and doing Fcuk all about it but whinging online.

now some people actually make an attempt to stand up for something, and we're dealt the above comments.

I really don't know what to fcukin think...... :rolleyes::mad:

Now THERE is a post I wish I could thank more than once.

fearcruach · 17-05-2010 01:52AM

If the Government had allowed Anglo to fail then it would have indicated to the markets and the general public that it was possible that any bank in Ireland could be allowed to fail. This would have led to a disastrous run on the banks and a fire sale of shares.

Our economy cannot function without a viable banking sector. That is fact, not opinion.

squod · 17-05-2010 01:55AM

Anglo isn't a viable bank though is it?

/

Einhard · 17-05-2010 02:05AM

squod wrote: »

But of course there's a debate. I haven't suggested there isn't. We know what the cost of Anglos bailout is. We knew back then (roughly) what it would cost.

No. We. Didn't.

Seriously. We didn't. No one could say whether an Anglo collapse could have been contained, whereby the cost would have been relatively small, or whether it would have triggered a wider failure, which would have been catastrophic. That's point. You keep on dancing around it.

As I pointed out earlier hindsight wasn't needed to make a decission like this, the government is surrounded by advisors and intellectuals generally. They're well able to make these decissions like.

So intelligent advisers and poor decisions are mutually exclusive then? Don't know whether that's naive or gullbile or both. Napoleon is generally considered one of the greatest military stategists of all time and yet, along with the finest generals in Europe at the time, he thought invading Russia would be a piece of cake. He was wrong. Hindsiight is a wondeful thing, and I'm sure Old Boney would have taken advantage of it had he a second chance.

All I'm saying really, is that Lenihan had a massive decision to make that day, and he had to make it immediately. No one knew how an Anglo collapse would have affected the other banks. The likely outcomes were either going to be bad (but manageably so) or catastrophically bad. It's easy to criticise his choice with the benefit of hindsight, and without the pressures that were bearing down on that day. That's my point.

Degsy · 17-05-2010 02:12AM

Einhard wrote: »

No. We. Didn't.

Seriously. We didn't. No one could say whether an Anglo collapse could have been contained, whereby the cost would have been relatively small, or whether it would have triggered a wider failure, which would have been catastrophic. That's point. You keep on dancing around it.

So intelligent advisers and poor decisions are mutually exclusive then? Don't know whether that's naive or gullbile or both. Napoleon is generally considered one of the greatest military stategists of all time and yet, along with the finest generals in Europe at the time, he thought invading Russia would be a piece of cake. He was wrong. Hindsiight is a wondeful thing, and I'm sure Old Boney would have taken advantage of it had he a second chance.

All I'm saying really, is that Lenihan had a massive decision to make that day, and he had to make it immediately. No one knew how an Anglo collapse would have affected the other banks. The likely outcomes were either going to be bad (but manageably so) or catastrophically bad. It's easy to criticise his choice with the benefit of hindsight, and without the pressures that were bearing down on that day. That's my point.

I like that post..its made me see the other side of the story..whereas i dont agree with the bank bailout it could be construed as neccesary.
Do you think though it will have a positive outcome?

DeVore · 17-05-2010 02:16AM

fearcruach wrote: »

If Anglo had failed then it would have been a devastating blow to the Irish financial sector.

Look at the damage the failure of Lehmahn Brothers did to the American economy.

Love or hate it, we are all tied together in this free market economy and you can't separate Joe public from it.

Lehmann Brothers is or should I say, was the biggest trading company on wall street, the biggest financial sector of America, the biggest economy in the world.

I dont think you can compare it to a specialist bank in Ireland. Anglo, by most people's standards, was not a systemic bank.

DeV.

Noreen1 · 17-05-2010 11:39AM

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I agree with a large portion of your post Noreen but I have to ask, what makes you think the alternative Gov to this one is going to be any better. They are all just 2 sides of the 1 corrupt coin. Kenny/Gilmore will just fcuk us as the ffers have. It truly is a catch 22!

That's a point I agree with this in every respect. I don't believe the next Government, no matter which party is elected, will do anything to change the current system - unless there are mass public protests, on the scale of the PAYE marches in the 80s. (or bigger:p:D)

wolfpawnat wrote: »

And yes non violent protests in every major town and city in every county to show the gov where we stand! If they see we are willing to give them a nice healthy boot out the door then they will think twice about the way they are screwing the public around!

Exactly. We currently have a Government that has absolutely no respect for the wishes of the people who elected them - the people they are meant to "serve". They "served" :rolleyes: all of us alright, (except the select few) but not in the way the people who voted for them intended that they should.

Such a protest would take time to organise - but we do have the necessary organisations in place. It is a matter of the various organisations, that already exist, being willing to co-ordinate their efforts, and protest as one massive group, under the banners of whatever organisation can arrange a protest on behalf of their members.

If Public and Private Sector Unions unite, and extend an invitation to groups representing Farmers, OAPS, People with Disabilities, etc. - then every political party would have to pay attention.

I honestly have no idea right now who I will vote for in the next election - quite frankly, there is no party out there that offers what I believe the country needs.
What I do know, is that unless people protest, and protest on a massive scale - then we will never see the change we need and deserve.

I would love to see such a protest take place before the three by-elections take place - if FF are ever compelled to hold these by-elections, that is!! There are two reasons for this:

1: Right now, the vultures in the financial markets are circling, and the last thing this country needs is further de-valuation of the Euro, which is exactly what would happen if such a protest were to happen right now.

2: To be truly effective, a mass protest needs a tremendous amount of planning and co-ordination by groups that have not previously worked together. (= Time)

The thing is - both these requirements complement one another! So all that is truly required is the will of as many representative organisations as possible.

It can happen - but will it?

Noreen

Noreen1 · 17-05-2010 11:50AM

ruthies wrote: »

Smoke screen

???

Noreen

stovelid · 17-05-2010 01:01PM

amacachi wrote: »

How exactly should the Gardaí remove someone who doesn't want to leave in a non-forceful manner?

No excuse for battering people unless they attack the Gardai first.

Maybe the ground should be leveled. If the Gardai want to swing their batons at the slightest provocation, then give the protesters a legal bye to fight back and defend themselves.

topper75 · 17-05-2010 01:17PM

What did Seánie Fitz do with all our rasta hats full of coins? We bust our lungs playing endless tin whistle tunes for that. I'd a right to let my dog off the twine at him. Grrrr:mad:

squod · 17-05-2010 01:44PM

Einhard wrote: »

No. We. Didn't.

Seriously. We didn't. No one could say whether an Anglo collapse could have been contained, whereby the cost would have been relatively small, or whether it would have triggered a wider failure, which would have been catastrophic. That's point. You keep on dancing around it.

So intelligent advisers and poor decisions are mutually exclusive then? Don't know whether that's naive or gullbile or both. Napoleon is generally considered one of the greatest military stategists of all time and yet, along with the finest generals in Europe at the time, he thought invading Russia would be a piece of cake. He was wrong. Hindsiight is a wondeful thing, and I'm sure Old Boney would have taken advantage of it had he a second chance.

All I'm saying really, is that Lenihan had a massive decision to make that day, and he had to make it immediately. No one knew how an Anglo collapse would have affected the other banks. The likely outcomes were either going to be bad (but manageably so) or catastrophically bad. It's easy to criticise his choice with the benefit of hindsight, and without the pressures that were bearing down on that day. That's my point.

Here we go again. The reason we bailed Anglo in the first place was beacuse it was knackered. The dogs in the street knew how indebted it was.

As I keep saying the government simply did not need hindsight. They chose to make the public bail out a private (and knackered) bank.

So they got a great deal of information about Anglo-Irish Bank by September 27th and, presumably, they included this information in the report Cowen and Lenihan got before they made their decision on September 29th. Certainly the two Brians were informed that Anglo was in trouble cash-wise. There had been a €10 billion reduction in corporate and retail deposits and there was a forecast of €12 billion negative cash flow by October 17th.

Kiith · 17-05-2010 01:57PM

stovelid wrote: »

If the Gardai want to swing their batons at the slightest provocation, then give the protesters a legal bye to fight back and defend themselves.

I'm sick of people constantly going on about how the Gardai have once again gone overboard, and have been way too harsh/violent/whatever and overact at the slightest provocation. Sick as well of the fact that most people come by these opinions because the Metro or whatever tabloid you all read shows a picture of a Gardai swinging his baton at someone.

You want a peaceful protest? Fine by me. Also fine by the Gardai. You want to stir up trouble, or try to illegally force your way through the gates of a government building? Then your asking to get a baton over the head.

Their job is to keep the peace, and to protect the people. Give them a ****ing break.

DeVore · 17-05-2010 02:09PM

I love the bit where they claimed the Gardai "incited the 'riot' by leaving the gate of the Dail open".

Wtf?!

basically they are sayin "look mate, you didnt lock your car, you know what I'm like, its your fault I went for a joyride, I mean... I am little bit waaahay....."

how do these people ever walk past the Dail on a day to day basis?

DeV.

Noreen1 · 17-05-2010 02:15PM

DeVore wrote: »

I love the bit where they claimed the Gardai "incited the 'riot' by leaving the gate of the Dail open".

Wtf?!

basically they are sayin "look mate, you didnt lock your car, you know what I'm like, its your fault I went for a joyride, I mean... I am little bit waaahay....."

DeV.

Off-topic, I know, but aren't you likely to get charged if your car gets stolen if you leave it unlocked?:D:D
(No, I'm not supporting riots! I just couldn't resist!:D)

Noreen

El Siglo · 17-05-2010 02:21PM

"No ifs, no buts, no Fianna Fáil cunts" - Fair play!:pac:

Bank roof "occupied"...then Gardaí beat them up :D

Comments