Rally for The Quinn-were you there?

Noreen1 wrote: »

By the way, please note that at no point in the above post have I stated that the Quinn family are beyond reproach.
I'm just not about to be swayed by media hyperbole.
I want the facts - all of them. I want justice to be seen to be done - not the Quinn family handed to the baying mob to appease public anger before the big boys come to trial.
Feel free to disagree.

Have to agree and it's where I am at with this.
Hand on heart, if I thought a government was corruptly taking what I had worked hard for, then I would do exactly what the Quinns did and take the consequences. I think most people would too, despite the clambering up onto the higher moral ground you see around here.
The question that needs to be answered is; was the taking of Quinns business wrong and based on an attempt to cover up the greater sins of someone else.

Let's be careful not to say anything that will prejudice The Septic Isle from banging him up. And somebody please watch the border this time !

Noreen1 wrote: »

By the way, please note that at no point in the above post have I stated that the Quinn family are beyond reproach.
I'm just not about to be swayed by media hyperbole.
I want the facts - all of them. I want justice to be seen to be done - not the Quinn family handed to the baying mob to appease public anger before the big boys come to trial.
Feel free to disagree.

My last post on this because you and others on this thread are just mouthing the same crap that comes from the Quinn family and supporters -its the media, its the judicial system, its the banks fault, nobody understands what he done for the border regions blah, blah.

Here's what I base my views on....

1. Sean Quinn was a hell of a business man that created a lot of employment in the border region a very disadvantaged area - I know that area well - my family is from that area. He deserves the credit he got for this but it was not philantrophy on his part - labour was cheap, costs were less than they would be in Dublin - it was an area he knew well and was not adverse to using the locale of the border to business advantage - kind of like Petey is doing now!!! Quinn were well know for paying the bare minimum but still fair play to him for creating the jobs in the first place but him and him alone wrecklessly endagered those same jobs by taking a stupid gamble and yet he wants our sympathy...

2. He has found by the judicial system to have been dishonest and trying to asset strip to rip the Irish taxpayers off, IRBC/Anglo as a stateowned bank simply had to stop him - he has been found to be a crook by the highest court in the land - where's the conspiracy here?? This is a fact under law and one which will see him landed in jail.

3. I too want to see Anglo and all the bankers have their day in court but to say we have to go after them first is smoke and mirrors and irrelevant to Sean Quinn's case.

4. Are you serious about him not being able to afford legal representation - one of the oldest tricks in the book - the mafia used to use this one to delay trials..

5. I'm from the area and am quite frankly embarassed by the behaviour of some people and those being interviewed - they are spouting the same crap - its the media/Anglo/Courts not our Sean - and cannot be swayed by rational argument - most cannot even see a different viewpoint

At the end of the day Sean Quinn took a gamble - it failed miserably and he put the livelihood of every person he created a job for at risk because of greed pure and adulterated and now has been found to be a dishonest and spiteful little man who has decided that if he can't have the assets then f%k the Irish taxpayer -they won't have them either..

tayto lover wrote: »

Have them all in court

I'd pay to see that.

Tom Joad wrote: »

My last post on this because you and others on this thread are just mouthing the same crap that comes from the Quinn family and supporters -its the media, its the judicial system, its the banks fault, nobody understands what he done for the border regions blah, blah.

Here's what I base my views on....

Then you've totally missed the point of my argument.

Over 2 Billion of the amount owed is disputed.
Someone needs to be taken to task for that.
Right now, that someone is Sean Quinn.

Here's the problem with that, though.

Anglo loaned the money.
That is illegal.
Questions need to be answered about who knew what - exactly - about that deal.
The public have a right to know every detail about who is culpable, and to what degree. It may well be that both Quinn and Anglo are equally culpable. If so, that's fair enough.

But!! If Anglo are the ones who broke the law, and not Sean Quinn, then he's just had a Business taken from him for illegality by someone else. That's mob justice - and not what I want to see.

Here's another thing that I have a big problem with.

The law about illegal loans not being able to be pursued through the courts is there for a very good reason.
If this law is overturned by the precedent set by the Quinn case, then there is a very real possibility that that precedent will be abused.
One possibilty that springs to mind, for example:

Suppose some poor sod gets in arrears with the mortgage, borrows from a loanshark, and can't repay the loan.
If this precedent is set, that shark would be entitled to pursue the loan, no matter how exorbitant the interest, through the courts.

Worse. If Sean Quinn is found not to be liable for the 2+ Billion, what on earth kind of precedent does it set? That it's ok to take X times the value of what you owe, provided you are richer/more powerful/better connected than the debtor, or can get the debtor to court quicker than the debtor can bring said creditors? Sod that! The repercussions for too many hard-working people are too great!
Said loan shark in the example would be able to legally claim everything a person owned, for what might have started off as a very small debt.

The only way I can see around these problems, is for the Anglo case to be heard first, followed by any cases against Sean Quinn.

So, in order for justice (note I said justice, not legal precedures) to be served, Anglo should be in court first. The taxpayer is not best served by going after Quinn first.
Thanks to our wonderful Government/s guarantees, the taxpayer is never going to see their money back.
Failing that, I want to see justice. I want to see people in jail.
I just want to see the right people in jail. If that includes Sean Quinn, so be it.
What I don't want to see is one person getting punished for the possible wrongdoing of others, and very dangerous legal precedents being set that will impact negatively on the rest of the population ad infinitum.

If that means waiting another few months - I think that's the better option.


3. I too want to see Anglo and all the bankers have their day in court but to say we have to go after them first is smoke and mirrors and irrelevant to Sean Quinn's case.

4. Are you serious about him not being able to afford legal representation - one of the oldest tricks in the book - the mafia used to use this one to delay trials..

5. I'm from the area and am quite frankly embarassed by the behaviour of some people and those being interviewed - they are spouting the same crap - its the media/Anglo/Courts not our Sean - and cannot be swayed by rational argument - most cannot even see a different viewpoint

At the end of the day Sean Quinn took a gamble - it failed miserably and he put the livelihood of every person he created a job for at risk because of greed pure and adulterated and now has been found to be a dishonest and spiteful little man who has decided that if he can't have the assets then f%k the Irish taxpayer -they won't have them either..

See above.

Just came across a video on youtube of the full rally for the quinns last weekend-to my surprise Ben Gilroy attended the quinn rally and spoke at it-43 minutes into the video you will see Ben speaking.

hardCopy wrote: »

All insurance companies operate under the regulator's permission, if you break the rules you lose your business.

Same applies to banks.

So, am I right in assuming that if the majority of businesses in the country were to break the rules in some way, that they could all be subject to a takeover by the receiver and sold off for €1 each? Or could this just be the case with this particular company. Now, lets say in theory that your answer could determine the fate of a person taking a risk and starting a business, would your answer be yes or no.

hardCopy wrote: »

Do even read what you type?

Certain sectors including banking, insurance, pensions and even travel agents, are required to operate under license or bonds.

Anybody wishing to open a business in these areas must pay up or demonstrate and maintain an ability to pay up in the event of a major incident.

Travel agents need to be able to pay for the return home of all customers, insurance companies need to keep minimum amounts in reserve in case of a widespread increase in claims, banks must maintain minimum reserves in case of a run.

Quinn didn't have those reserves, if a disaster hit Ireland and a large number of claims came in at once they would have been wiped out. When companies are that badly run the government steps in to steady the ship and protect the customer (at massive cost to the taxpayer).

The regulator should really have stepped in earlier, but there is no way the Quinns could have kept that business going.

What is about a lot of posters on Boards, where ya ask for a yes or no answer, then someone comes back with a bleedin short story.

darkhorse wrote: »

So, am I right in assuming that if the majority of businesses in the country were to break the rules in some way, that they could all be subject to a takeover by the receiver and sold off for €1 each? Or could this just be the case with this particular company. Now, lets say in theory that your answer could determine the fate of a person taking a risk and starting a business, would your answer be yes or no.

hardCopy wrote: »

Do even read what you type?
Anybody wishing to open a business in these areas must pay up or demonstrate and maintain an ability to pay up in the event of a major incident.
The regulator should really have stepped in earlier, but there is no way the Quinns could have kept that business going.

hardCopy wrote: »

Yes.
Anybody in a regulated sector who fails to obey the rules can and should lose their business.
/QUOTE]

1. I do read what I type. Why cant someone that I am asking a question to not read what I type. If I wanted a story to go with my answer, I would have asked.

2. According to Peter Quinn, there was enough funds in place. Is he wrong?

3. If the company was in a position where it could'nt keep going, why did'nt the regulator step in earlier, as you say he should have?

4. I just cant understand how posters on an discussion forum on the internet seem to know more about the present situation involving this particular company than all the people who spoke at that rally.