Anglo Tapes

Godge · 25-06-2013 04:22PM

shedweller wrote: »

But it would have prevented us from getting into this mess, would it not?

Now is the time to propose a bill that does just what i have said. I can guarantee you there would be a lot of public support for it (tie house prices to inflation, or some other stabilising rule). It won't happen in 10 years or so when the good times return, thats for sure.

Now is the time; change how the system works NOW!!
The people of Ireland need to vote on this.

You can't tie house price to inflation. Artificial control of the market in that way usually results in a shortage of the commodity.

Scofflaw · 25-06-2013 04:23PM

Godge wrote: »

I agree that neither Cowen nor Lenihan were corrupt in the sense that you mean. However, they (and FF in general) surrounded themselves with the great and the good whether it was in the Galway tent or down in golf clubs in Wicklow or late night visits to economists before decisions are taken. But Cowen and Lenihan weren't the brightest and they listened to those around them. So when Seanie, Dermot and the boys showed up and said we need a little dig-out to help us through a small problem, they were more than happy to oblige as the dig-out has a long history in FF. And in true FF fashion, they never asked another question, just made it happen.

Yes - and that 'golden circle' effect is one of history's regular explanations for extraordinarily bad decisions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 25-06-2013 04:27PM

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But if Cowen was the Minister for Finance, then the Taoiseach,
and the Financial Regulator and Department of Finance claim/feign ignorance,
how can Cowen not be guilty of corruption?

That must mean either the head of the department/head of the government, as the case may be, withheld vital information, or the department are not as innocent as they claim?

It's much more plausible to believe that Cowen withheld information, rather than a department wide conspiracy.

It's neither plausible nor necessary. It invents a conspiracy which is not needed to explain what happened, when what happened is perfectly well explained by nobody outside Anglo knowing how bad things were in Anglo.

Even the stuff you've cited shows a clueless Cowen still doing favours for the bank as the bank crumbles internally. Is that what you're trying to explain? If he knew, why wouldn't he distance himself?

cordially,
Scofflaw

View · 25-06-2013 04:28PM

listermint wrote: »

How do you 'call for it' Phone up enda and ask ?

Genuinely interested ?

You don't call for it, you vote for it.

Politicians are in the market for votes and look at what we actually vote for, not what we say we want.

For instance, if the "dodgy as hell" politician tops the poll while the "let's clean the system up" politician struggles for the last seat (or loses out), then why - if you are an ambivalent politician - should you put major effort into reforming the system?

Should you do so then "your reward" from the electorate is most likely that you'd lose votes and maybe even your seat.

It is only IF the electorate demonstrate their desire for change either: a) by their voting or b) by organising and contesting elections that you will see change.

Change will not come about on any other basis - why should it if the electorate won't vote for it?

View · 25-06-2013 04:33PM

Godge wrote: »

You can't tie house price to inflation. Artificial control of the market in that way usually results in a shortage of the commodity.

Absence of "artificial controls" on the market resulted in massive oversupply of housing.

That's hardly an improvement, is it?

25-06-2013 04:33PM

BFDCH. wrote: »

if this is true (and i have no reason to doubt it) they should be destroyed. everything they own should be taken from them and they should be stuck in the deepest hole we have.

Apologies if this sounds overly right wing and over the top, it isn't intended to be, but after i had calmed down ofter hearing the tapes for the first time last night, I was mulling this over with the missus and we came up with a suggestion that a new crime should be put on the statute books for an act as grave and far reaching as what happened in Anglo. Like treason against the state, albeit not quite so grave. Making someone an official "second class citizen" as it were, in addition to criminal sanction.

We were wondering whether it was feasible to not just jail someone for their part in a crime, but to also name them as an enemy of the state (or some other unpalatable moniker), blacken their name and take away any and all comforts which the state affords it's law abiding decent people like dole, state services, use of government facilities, parks, public works, etc for the rest of their lives.

It might seem draconian, but who says we don't need something radical to act as a deterrent to make sure something like this never happens again?

The bank guarantee was (in my view) the most disastrous and far reaching decision ever taken in Ireland (and i would even go so far as to include the civil war in that statement, albeit not in terms of loss of life). It has negatively effected millions of people's lives and happiness, broken up families and loved ones, and has damned our country to poverty debt, and emigration for a generation or more, and as these tapes show, it was predicated on lies and brought about by a deliberate strategy to defraud the state.

That has to be answered for, and i don't think we have a sanction at present that reflects the sheer gravity and consequences of what was done.

niallers1 wrote: »

...The people in the department of finance who are complicit in this should also be charged...

i would say that's a big part of why we haven't seen any action on charges or banking inquiries so far. I'm sure the senior guys in the DoF as well as on both sides of leinster house have just as much, if not more to lose from any more revelations being turned up in the face of scrutiny. I'd be fairly certain that our politicians on both sides of the house have a lot of skin in the game by now as well, and it's in everybody's interest not to make too much noise.

I hope I'm wrong, but i can see any state sanctioned inquiry into the banking sector being given very specific terms of reference as to what is fair game for investigation, and what isn't.

shedweller · 25-06-2013 04:39PM

Godge wrote: »

You can't tie house price to inflation. Artificial control of the market in that way usually results in a shortage of the commodity.

Shortage? I thought there were too many properties in Ireland?

And how can this "tied to inflation" system work elsewhere? Different laws of physics? Parallel dimension?

Or is it simply that the banking sector doesn't make impossible amounts of money from this system and therefore it cannot be allowed?

The time for change is now. Enough of this "it'll never work here" nonsense!

Dannyboy83 · 25-06-2013 04:46PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Withheld what information? Where is there any evidence at all that Cowen knew how bad things were in Anglo?

A:
The tapes appear to confirm the Alibi that the government were unaware of the scale of the Anglo Problem

B:
It appears to that Cowen was aware Anglo was insolvent in advance of the guarantee.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cowen-anglo-insolvency-was-discussed-at-time-of-bank-guarantee-472424.html#ixzz0yl6gNZP1
Taoiseach Brian Cowen has confirmed that the issue of the solvency of Anglo Irish Bank was brought up with the Government on the night they implemented the bank guarantee scheme.

It's neither plausible nor necessary. It invents a conspiracy which is not needed to explain what happened, when what happened is perfectly well explained by nobody outside Anglo knowing how bad things were in Anglo.

But you must understand, it seems only you are willing to accept this theory?
It's a big ask.

Given the mounting circumstantial evidence, it simply seems implausible that Brian Cowen could have been unaware.

The Department - Yes
The Regulator - Yes
Cowen - No.

Godge · 25-06-2013 05:07PM

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

A:
The tapes appear to confirm the Alibi that the government were unaware of the scale of the Anglo Problem

B:
It appears to that Cowen was aware Anglo was insolvent in advance of the guarantee.

But you must understand, it seems only you are willing to accept this theory?
It's a big ask.

Given the mounting circumstantial evidence, it simply seems implausible that Brian Cowen could have been unaware.

The Department - Yes
The Regulator - Yes
Cowen - No.

You are forgetting one thing, even if Cowen was aware (and I agree with Scofflaw, for what it's worth that the simple explanation is that he was just doing what was asked), he wouldn't have understood what it meant and he wouldn't have understood its consequences. The man was a career politician, he didn't even have the understanding of a teacher of the real world.

Scofflaw · 25-06-2013 05:28PM

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

A:
The tapes appear to confirm the Alibi that the government were unaware of the scale of the Anglo Problem

B:
It appears to that Cowen was aware Anglo was insolvent in advance of the guarantee.

And what you're offering as evidence is this?

Taoiseach Brian Cowen has confirmed that the issue of the solvency of Anglo Irish Bank was brought up with the Government on the night they implemented the bank guarantee scheme.

The issue was brought up? How is that supposed to show that Cowen knew Anglo were insolvent? I'm sorry, but that's not even close to getting a ticket to stand in the line to enter the ballpark for what you're saying.

I don't like Cowen, I think he was appallingly, wilfully, criminally negligent - him and his several predecessors over the prior decade, I'd be happy to see him in the dock - but this 'evidence' of yours just doesn't show a thing.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But you must understand, it seems only you are willing to accept this theory?

I doubt it.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

It's a big ask.

Er, no - your theory is a big ask, and you're not supporting it so far.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Given the mounting circumstantial evidence, it simply seems implausible that Brian Cowen could have been unaware.

The Department - Yes
The Regulator - Yes
Cowen - No.

There is no "mounting circumstantial evidence", or at least you've presented none. What you've presented is evidence only of a willingness to believe on your part.

No offence, but this is an irrelevant sidetrack into a theory unsupported so far by concrete evidence, and unrelated to the contents of the tapes. If the tapes we're currently discussing turn up something relevant to the theory - objectively relevant, now - feel free to return to it. Otherwise, if you want to try to flesh out the theory, please do it on another thread - open one if required. Whether Cowen knew anything more than the regulators and failed to disclose it is completely irrelevant here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dannyboy83 · 25-06-2013 05:49PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Otherwise, if you want to try to flesh out the theory, please do it on another thread - open one if required. Whether Cowen knew anything more than the regulators and failed to disclose it is completely irrelevant here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I genuinely don't understand how it's irrelevant, surely this is the core issue?

But I will disengage as requested.

Cody Pomeray · 25-06-2013 05:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

we came up with a suggestion that a new crime should be put on the statute books for an act as grave and far reaching as what happened in Anglo. Like treason against the state, albeit not quite so grave. Making someone an official "second class citizen" as it were, in addition to criminal sanction.

That would firstly be incompatible with Article 15 of Bunreacht na hEireann and with Article 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights, in the sense that legislation cannot 'retrospectively' create an offence where there was no offence at the time of the commission of any act or undertaking.

There is already a provision for applying penal sanctions to criminals and tortfeasors which has the effect of making them second class citizens. These sanctions are some of the most serious penalties I can conceive - removing an individual of his property, or else depriving him of his liberty and depriving him of freedom of association , as well as the denial of other human rights provided for in law.

So we already make wrongdoers into second class citizens. Very dramatically so.

That is not to dismiss your suggestion, by the way. The public branding idea is an interesting idea. I'm all for re-instating the stocks that once stood outside The Bull and Castle in Dublin, for example, but I don't know if they're adequate for crimes of a serious nature.

I hope I'm wrong, but i can see any state sanctioned inquiry into the banking sector being given very specific terms of reference as to what is fair game for investigation, and what isn't.

I don't think there is any basis for a credible investigation into the banking crash by the legislature. The terms of reference are already limited in respect of what the Constitution can allow. Nobody wants to use the T word, but we do need a serious and independent Commission of Inquiry headed by a Judge or a panel of Judges.

Scofflaw · 25-06-2013 05:56PM

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand how it's irrelevant, surely this is the core issue?

But I will disengage as requested.

It's irrelevant because the tapes have no bearing on it, and it has no bearing on the tapes. For the moment, all the tapes have changed is that we now have a very clear picture of what went on inside Anglo during the run-up to the guarantee. The tapes shed no new light on what went on inside the government or with particular members of the government - they show Anglo face to face with the Central Bank, doing a snow job that doesn't mention or seem to require anybody's complicity anywhere. Nothing so far has any relation to Cowen, and he's a red herring in this discussion, not a core issue.

Even if the claim is correct, and Cowen did know the bank was insolvent, the theory basically posits that he knew this through personal contact with members of the bank's executive. As such, he would still would be very much a non-issue, because it still means the people responsible for regulating the banks were clueless about the state of the banks. Someone from the bank personally telling a member of the government on a golf course is meaningless to whether the banks were properly regulated - it's purely a fun diversion and a way of exercising a bit of spleen on an individual politician.

That may change, of course, and if it does, you're welcome to bring it up again. Currently, though, there is no interesting role for Cowen here on a personal basis, and no new information in respect of him.

cordially,
Scofflaw

AlmightyCushion · 25-06-2013 07:30PM

Formalhaut wrote: »

If this was the U.S. these sociopaths would be doing the perp walk in handcuffs by now, and looking down the barrel of a 100 year jail sentence.

The U.S. government is frightened of its population because its population is armed and ****ing dangerous.

Whereas the Irish roll their eyes, say 'ah, sure' and cry into their pints. Time we made our presence felt guys.

This story was posted to r/worldnews on reddit and there was a big discussion thread there with a load of Americans saying they were surprised by this because they thought it was only in the US where big bankers were getting away with this crap.

Mr.Micro · 25-06-2013 07:46PM

I am sure that there are more tapes to come, its like Watergate aka Anglogate.
I posted in 2008 that Lenihan was not clever enough for the banks and that they would do a number on him, this appears now to have been the case. Only its turned out to many numbers amounting to billions.

The Government is to to have a banking enquiry by parliamentary committee. This is probably to see how it goes and tread carefully IMO, maybe to keep certain facts from the public, or it could be to keep the cost down and not have a lengthy tribunal, that achieves nothing. I have become so cynical about politics in Ireland and the golden circles that exist, where the politicians are firmly entrenched with their business buddies and look out for each other.

The timing of this enquiry would perhaps throw up a lot of stuff that FF might not want in the run up to the next election. Then again we might all still be in the dark in 18 months time.

Scofflaw · 25-06-2013 07:51PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I am sure that there are more tapes to come, its like Watergate aka Anglogate.
I posted in 2008 that Lenihan was not clever enough for the banks and that they would do a number on him, this appears now to have been the case. Only its turned out to many numbers amounting to billions.

The Government is to to have a banking enquiry by parliamentary committee. This is probably to see how it goes and tread carefully IMO, maybe to keep certain facts from the public, or it could be to keep the cost down and not have a lengthy tribunal, that achieves nothing. I have become so cynical about politics in Ireland and the golden circles that exist, where the politicians are firmly entrenched with their business buddies and look out for each other.

The timing of this enquiry would perhaps throw up a lot of stuff that FF might not want in the run up to the next election. Then again we might all still be in the dark in 18 months time.

What worries me here is that I can see the government licking its lips over the thought of using this to push another "Oireachtas Inquiries" referendum, almost certainly with all the same problems as the last one, perhaps slightly better disguised.

See, for example: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/taoiseach-favours-parliamentary-inquiry-into-bank-guarantee-598489.html

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand · 25-06-2013 08:10PM

@Scofflaw

And here we are, with Anglo doing in respect of the Irish guarantee exactly what I've always said was done with it - using it to pull in deposits from other people's banks:

http://www.independent.ie/business/i...-29369275.html

Quote:
Mr Drumm can be heard laughing at the financial regulator's concerns about being seen internationally to be "abusing" the bank guarantee in late 2008.

"We won't do anything blatant, but . . . we have to get the money in . . . get the f***in' money in, get it in," he tells his senior manager, John Bowe.

At the time, European leaders including Germany's Angela Merkel and UK chancellor Alistair Darling were alarmed at how the guarantee could affect their banking systems.

But Mr Bowe sang a "comedy" version of the anthem 'Deutschland Uber Alles' and talked about giving "two fingers" to British concern.

Mr Drumm and Mr Bowe are heard laughing at the concerns that the movement of money was causing a rift between Ireland and its EU partners.

Drumm declares to his colleague: "So f***in' what. Just take it anyway . . . stick the fingers up."
Let that be the final nail in the coffin of the idea that our guarantee was somehow foisted on us by Germany or Europe. It was for the benefit of the rats in "our" banks - making me wonder again where the original narrative came from, and who it served.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nice. You cant seem to find any evidence of a criminal conspiracy in the recordings but you've managed to find conclusive proof that something wasn't done for a particular reason, despite having no direct evidence from any of the decision makers in the transcripts. Many would have thought proving a negative is difficult, perhaps even impossible. Congratulations.

That said, I think the best that can be said is that given the complete lack of any information around the 2008 guarantee negotiations and strategy, the claim it was enforced by the ECB/EU in 2008 is unproven or unlikely. You're confusing reaction to the decision by Anglo Irish with the motivation of the decision makers in the DoF. I recall the Irish government being very badly embarrassed by the the way several Irish banks exploited the guarantee by poaching deposits.

I haven't seen any evidence presented that Cowen was 'corrupt' in the sense of taking personal money or favours in exchange for favourable decisions, legislation, and pressure for the banks.

I don't give any weight to that standard get out of jail card for Irish politicians. He made decisions for private reasons. His lack of cash compensation (has that been proven by an audit of his income?) only demonstrates that he was a lousy negotiator when selling his services, received his compensation from benefits in kind, or corrupt politicians are so rife in Ireland that's it's difficult to charge for one's services.

For example: Bertie appointing people to state boards because they were his mates *is* corruption. Just because you cant prove Bertie didn't get paid by them for it doesn't mean he's not corrupt.

I'm doing it again at the moment, come to that - pointing out that the people who said "I always knew it was a scam" have nothing to pat themselves on the back about, because their belief had nothing to do with evidence, and everything to do with mindless reflex cynicism.

Actually their belief had everything to do with evidence. Evidence is just that - evidence, not a conviction in a court of law. Widespread evidence of corruption in Irish politics and incompetence in state institutions dates back for decades. Irish banks have failed and been bailed out already. Vast corruption with Irish banks assisting tax evasion is public knowledge. Plus several widely sneered at "Cassandras" like Morgan Kelly and others were pointing at evidence that the decisions being made were very bad and made no sense. There was a rush to force those bad decisions through without debate or discussion or oversight (TINA! TINA!). Rushed decisions that make no sense on the surface can make much more sense in light of corruption. You couldn't secure a conviction on it, but people who thought "This is a scam" had good reason to believe so.

The problem is Scofflaw that you've always dismissed that evidence out of hand as mindless reflex cynicism.

Sand · 25-06-2013 08:22PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I posted in 2008 that Lenihan was not clever enough for the banks and that they would do a number on him, this appears now to have been the case.

In fairness, the banks cant claim to be all that clever themselves. They're plotting a criminal conspiracy on office telephones they know (or ought to know) are routinely taped. Dumb and dumber leaps to mind.

andrew · 25-06-2013 08:27PM

The main thing these tapes illustrate, I think, is just how little information the Regulator had at the time, and how utterly impotent it was as a regulatory institution. It's amazing that it didn't even have enough information at the time to be able to know whether the banks it was monitoring were or could be insolvent. And If the regulator's job wasn't to monitor the solvency of financial institutions, then what was it? It should never have been the case that the regulator had to take the word of an entity which it regulated.

It's more proof, not that any were needed, that financial institutions at that time were in practice completely unregulated. And had the crisis not happened, I'd say it's a certainty that they would have remained unregulated. It has taken the worst recession this country has ever seen in order for the Central Bank to get the political capital necessary to start engaging in the kind of regulation that it's now clear is necessary. I don't think the Central Bank particularly wanted to engage in stricter regulation during the housing boom anyway, but I've no doubt that had they suggested that they do so, the idea would have been completely rejected by the public and politicians alike.

Scofflaw · 25-06-2013 08:30PM

Sand wrote: »

@Scofflaw

Nice. You cant seem to find any evidence of a criminal conspiracy in the recordings but you've managed to find conclusive proof that something wasn't done for a particular reason, despite having no direct evidence from any of the decision makers in the transcripts. Many would have thought proving a negative is difficult, perhaps even impossible. Congratulations.

That said, I think the best that can be said is that given the complete lack of any information around the 2008 guarantee negotiations and strategy, the claim it was enforced by the ECB/EU in 2008 is unproven or unlikely.

Thanks. You're correct that it's impossible to prove a negative, but after all, I've been fighting a fairly lonely fight against people who believed "the claim it was enforced by the ECB/EU in 2008" without any evidence whatsoever, so I'll take my cheap glass of Vin d'Ication where I can get it.

Sand wrote: »

You're confusing reaction to the decision by Anglo Irish with the motivation of the decision makers in the DoF. I recall the Irish government being very badly embarrassed by the the way several Irish banks exploited the guarantee by poaching deposits.

And that, in turn, confuses the public reaction of the government on being caught out in a particularly egregious example of "abuse" of the guarantee (Fingers junior, afair) with their motives in creating it. The idea that the guarantee was created to staunch the leakage from the balance sheets of Irish banks passes at least three major tests, which are that it addressed the major real problem the Irish banks had, it worked, and that the banks actively and particularly saw it that way. I've always had the first and second, now I have the third. Circumstantially, it explains a lot about the absence of real clarification about the thinking behind the guarantee, and given the guarantee seems to have been lobbied for by the banks, I see it as a very solid, and increasingly substantiated, theory.

Sand wrote: »

I don't give any weight to that standard get out of jail card for Irish politicians. He made decisions for private reasons. His lack of cash compensation (has that been proven by an audit of his income?) only demonstrates that he was a lousy negotiator when selling his services, received his compensation from benefits in kind, or corrupt politicians are so rife in Ireland that's it's difficult to charge for one's services.

For example: Bertie appointing people to state boards because they were his mates *is* corruption. Just because you cant prove Bertie didn't get paid by them for it doesn't mean he's not corrupt.

Maybe, maybe not - to be honest, I don't care, and don't consider it important for the reasons I gave. I appreciate people like being able to show that politician A or B was "in the know" or "corrupt", but I can't see the point beyond a certain mean glee. The personal angle isn't important, the cultural, regulatory, and legal ones are.

Sand wrote: »

Actually their belief had everything to do with evidence. Evidence is just that - evidence, not a conviction in a court of law. Widespread evidence of corruption in Irish politics and incompetence in state institutions dates back for decades. Irish banks have failed and been bailed out already. Vast corruption with Irish banks assisting tax evasion is public knowledge. Plus several widely sneered at "Cassandras" like Morgan Kelly and others were pointing at evidence that the decisions being made were very bad and made no sense. There was a rush to force those bad decisions through without debate or discussion or oversight (TINA! TINA!). Rushed decisions that make no sense on the surface can make much more sense in light of corruption. You couldn't secure a conviction on it, but people who thought "This is a scam" had good reason to believe so.

The problem is Scofflaw that you've always dismissed that evidence out of hand as mindless reflex cynicism.

Because it largely is mindless reflex cynicism, and not evidence. I didn't dismiss people like Morgan Kelly out of hand, but a big chunk of the people who claimed the guarantee was a scam would claim the placement of toilet seats in a public park was a scam. Those who are incapable of offering evidence and reasoning for why something is wrong aren't offering anything other than their own prejudices, and they're frankly more valuable to the people making bad decisions than those opposing them, because they devalue opposition to bad decisions.

Claims of "scam" are just that, to quote you - they're not evidence. People claim 9/11 was a fake, that aliens are hushed up by the government, and that's not evidence for either of those things being true either. Evidence, or analysis, as offered by people like Kelly, is valuable - the repetitive shouting from the cheap seats isn't. On the contrary, it mostly just drowns out the good stuff.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray · 25-06-2013 08:35PM

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

This story was posted to r/worldnews on reddit and there was a big discussion thread there with a load of Americans saying they were surprised by this because they thought it was only in the US where big bankers were getting away with this crap.

That's all well and good, but all it tells us is a certain perception on their behalf.

The naked fact is that Ireland's regulatory and corporate law provisions have struggled to keep pace with developments in our corporate landscape (especially when it suits our tax model).

This country doesn't even have standalone fraud legislation... instead the DPP has to string together any provisions where they can be gathered up from sections here and there across overlapping (and of course, underlapping, if that is a word) sections on market manipulation, insider dealing, or false accounting or what have you.

The Criminal Justice (Corruption) Bill has partially come about because the Government were embarrassed into it by the OECD. It is replacing anti-fraud legislation from the Victorian era. That means that despite the corporate innovations that our economy has relied upon, some of the anti fraud legislation we were also reliant upon dates from the 1880s. It never had a hope.

So no offence to Reddit users, but their frustration is not an accurate comment on the American corporate regime as against the Irish version.

Sand · 25-06-2013 09:03PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Thanks. You're correct that it's impossible to prove a negative

No worries.

Because it largely is mindless reflex cynicism, and not evidence. I didn't dismiss people like Morgan Kelly out of hand, but a big chunk of the people who claimed the guarantee was a scam would claim the placement of toilet seats in a public park was a scam.

Look, at the end of the day its between you and God, but you're doing it again right there. I certainly agree there was plenty of lazy thinking about politicians, bankers, civil servants "Shure arent they all corrupt thieving bastards" and a lot of red faced angry men screaming vile abuse on youtube vlogs getting an inexplicable amount of airplay, but you're doing exactly the same thing "Shure aren't they all mindless reflex cynics?". No need to bother with the evidence.

Regardless of the presentation who believed what - and I certainly agree the Official Ireland guys had the better suits, better PR skills and the better access to media - the evidence was available, freely, to justifiably believe that the guarantee was a scam. Certainly there was scant evidence to believe the guarantee made any objective sense - either in theory before the fact, or in practice it after it. Mindless reflex optimism perhaps?

I've said it several times - no one *ever* asks the government to justify its policies. Only those disagreeing with them must prove their case.

Radiosonde · 25-06-2013 10:04PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I didn't dismiss people like Morgan Kelly out of hand, but a big chunk of the people who claimed the guarantee was a scam would claim the placement of toilet seats in a public park was a scam.

Sorry to intrude on the debate you guys are having, but what the hell does this mean?

Did you mean to write park benches or public toilets? I have visions of a public park with toilet seats strewn liberally around for the patrons' convenience.

dcmm · 25-06-2013 10:46PM

Prime Time now RTE1......

Scofflaw · 25-06-2013 10:51PM

Radiosonde wrote: »

Sorry to intrude on the debate you guys are having, but what the hell does this mean? Did you mean to write park benches or public toilets? I have visions of a public park with toilet seats strewn liberally around for the patrons' convenience.

I claim heat of the moment!

retrospectively,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 25-06-2013 11:13PM

Sand wrote: »

No worries.

Look, at the end of the day its between you and God, but you're doing it again right there. I certainly agree there was plenty of lazy thinking about politicians, bankers, civil servants "Shure arent they all corrupt thieving bastards" and a lot of red faced angry men screaming vile abuse on youtube vlogs getting an inexplicable amount of airplay, but you're doing exactly the same thing "Shure aren't they all mindless reflex cynics?". No need to bother with the evidence.

That's your characterisation, which I don't regard as anything to do with me, to be honest. I obviously don't regard everyone who opposes government policy as a mindless reflex cynic - after all, I'd have to characterise myself that way if I did.

Sand wrote: »

Regardless of the presentation who believed what - and I certainly agree the Official Ireland guys had the better suits, better PR skills and the better access to media - the evidence was available, freely, to justifiably believe that the guarantee was a scam. Certainly there was scant evidence to believe the guarantee made any objective sense - either in theory before the fact, or in practice it after it. Mindless reflex optimism perhaps?

I've said it several times - no one *ever* asks the government to justify its policies. Only those disagreeing with them must prove their case.

Claiming it "didn't make any objective sense" is not a very meaningful claim - indeed, exactly the kind of claim I'm happy to deride, because the guarantee did make sense - it stemmed the flow of deposits for the Irish banks. Sure, that was a bandaid over a fatal wound, but it did do what it was supposed to do.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mr.Micro · 25-06-2013 11:30PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Claiming it "didn't make any objective sense" is not a very meaningful claim - indeed, exactly the kind of claim I'm happy to deride, because the guarantee did make sense - it stemmed the flow of deposits for the Irish banks. Sure, that was a bandaid over a fatal wound, but it did do what it was supposed to do.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah yes it did, but at what cost? We now see the likes of Bowe and Drumm and what their agenda was. Who is to say that the other banks were not doing the same. I will bet they were. The cost could have been a lot less if more facts were known perhaps, and crucially let Anglo go to the wall, and keep BOI and AIB. Someone made a decision to save bail the rotten Anglo, for reasons we may discover in due course? Golden circle and cronies come to mind. A bank guarantee yes, but not for all the banks.

washman3 · 25-06-2013 11:31PM

Good loser wrote: »

Re the tapes they're interesting (and funny too) but, as Scofflaw states in post 19, probably nothing illegal or actionable there. Personally I would be amazed if conversations of this nature had not taken place at the time - in the upper echelons of the Bank. And it was only a conversation.

To me the heart of the matter is that the Regulator and his staff (that is State workers) were extraordinarily incompetent and gullible over many years.

What a load of pathetic crap. just shows the type of attitude that allowed these charletens to operate in the first place. :mad:
This was not simply a 'conversation', it was an ultra devious plan/plot to deceive/defraud the Central Bank, ie the Irish taxpayer.
This plot was at least 6 months (that we so far know of ) in the making.
Simply blaming the regulator is a lazy excuse. The regulator was simply a FF semi-senile crony pushed into that job because by law we need to have a regulator. i seriously doubt if the guy had even a basic grasp of economics.
His 'staff' were simply there to collect their weekly wage.
Of course the banking sharks knew this and since the people in Government were both economically illiterate and living in their pockets the coast was clear for their orgy of deceit.
Think you should have waited for the second tranche of tapes to be revealed before writing such a silly post, as your theory has been completely blown out of the water.!!
And remember this is just the start. wait until the tapes of the 'conversations' between bankers and politicans are released.;)

Mr.Micro · 25-06-2013 11:50PM

washman3 wrote: »

What a load of pathetic crap. just shows the type of attitude that allowed these charletens to operate in the first place. :mad:
This was not simply a 'conversation', it was an ultra devious plan/plot to deceive/defraud the Central Bank, ie the Irish taxpayer.
This plot was at least 6 months (that we so far know of ) in the making.
Simply blaming the regulator is a lazy excuse. The regulator was simply a FF semi-senile crony pushed into that job because by law we need to have a regulator. i seriously doubt if the guy had even a basic grasp of economics.
His 'staff' were simply there to collect their weekly wage.
Of course the banking sharks knew this and since the people in Government were both economically illiterate and living in their pockets the coast was clear for their orgy of deceit.
Think you should have waited for the second tranche of tapes to be revealed before writing such a silly post, as your theory has been completely blown out of the water.!!
And remember this is just the start. wait until the tapes of the 'conversations' between bankers and politicans are released.;)

Now that is going too far, we might actually get some answers.

Not sure that the politicians will be revealed at this stage? Its almost unbelievable that these recordings exist. Nixon had every conversation recorded in the Whitehouse when he was in office. The very same system that he created caught him out, as all his conversations and orders (illegal) were recorded as well. Pure conceit and arrogance.

K-9 · 26-06-2013 12:01AM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Ah yes it did, but at what cost? We now see the likes of Bowe and Drumm and what their agenda was. Who is to say that the other banks were not doing the same. I will bet they were. The cost could have been a lot less if more facts were known perhaps, and crucially let Anglo go to the wall, and keep BOI and AIB. Someone made a decision to save bail the rotten Anglo, for reasons we may discover in due course? Golden circle and cronies come to mind. A bank guarantee yes, but not for all the banks.

The main logical reasons I can think of was that Anglo owed other Irish banks Billions plus the Central Bank, so the worry was contagion.

Anglo Tapes

Comments