Why don't we riot like mad ejits

SpaceTime · 20-02-2014 10:25PM

Filibuster wrote: »

idk the Irish whip ensures the political parties have a tight grip on power. Don't toe the party line and you're out, along with all the funding for your reelection campaign.

Getting elected doesn't involve towing the party line at all though. It's incredibly easy to get onto the ballot paper and run a campaign here compared to most countries.

PR-STV is almost unique in giving total open access to independent candidates. Most PR systems use party lists where you're selecting between one list or another.

Likewise, first past the post doesn't give much leeway for smaller parties and independent MPs in the UK.

The whip system in Ireland's not THAT strong either on many issues. TDs with big mandates (multiple quotas) or who are quite influential can usually tell the party whip where to get off.

I think with the recent departures from FG, the issue was more about keeping the coalition intact and that the personalities who left in some cases had been part of the attempt to change the party leader.

Filibuster · 20-02-2014 10:49PM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Ever been to Ukraine? I guess not. Yes poor wages by European standards then again food is 3 times cheaper over there compared to here too.

Prices of food etc. are about 60% lower but then wages are about 90% lower in the Ukraine. Interestingly, mortgage interest rates are 18.5% in the Ukraine :eek:

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Ireland&country2=Ukraine

Potatoeman · 20-02-2014 11:25PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

No, you don't need people with previous industry experience, you need regulatory and criminal prosecution experience - if you're taking people with industry experience, those people have a much higher chance of having a professional conflict of interest, that compromises their integrity.

Don't you think the banking/financial industry have a much bigger incentive, to influence the financial regulator, into letting the housing market grow - seeing as they are both the ones that gain from it most, and are in a pretty good position to do that?

If someone commits a crime, that is generally the fault of the person committing the crime yes? And if the crime was preventable, that blame is shared with the authorities, it doesn't all get lumped on the authorities, right?

Working in the industry gives the applicant an advantage in that they know the industry. They should be bound by their contract to declare any conflict and be liable for any breach of their contract.

Yes, if you commit a crime you should be liable but because we didn't enforce regulation on those that were in violation of regulation in the first place and were in fact benefitting from it, we encouraged others to breach the same regulation. This is why the pillar banks were drawn into the developer market.

A huge part of our problem was that some banks made huge profits from breaching regulations and were not kept in line, so the large institutions breached the same regulations to compete. It's not right but they were drawn in as they wanted to increase their share values.

JuliusCaesar · 20-02-2014 11:47PM

sawdoubters wrote: »

they put something in the water

FLUORIDE!!!!! aaargh! >chokes<

>dies<

DistanceVector · 21-02-2014 01:47AM

bnt wrote: »

Moan all you want, if that makes you feel better. You can even play the blame game, start public enquiries and all that jazz, as discussed elsewhere in this thread. Riot all you want - after all, it will provide work for the glaziers needed to replace all those broken windows.

But don't confuse that for constructive action, or anything else that will prevent the same things from happening again. Maybe financial regulations are too lax, but why do we need regulations in the first place? Because people are too dumb and/or greedy to see that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Anyone who sells you a financial product - mortgages, investments, insurance, whatever - is in business to make money off of you.

So now, Ireland is in a macroeconomic hole. How will a riot get it out of that hole? Will a protest bring back all the money poured in to the property bubble, in to the hands of investment bankers? Or do you imagine that you can somehow claw it back, from wherever it is now, by another tax? Or, perhaps, learn from the mistakes (yours or those of others), and practice personal financial discipline in the future?

That is a load of awul sh1te. I dont want a riot for a start. See post #278.

So you are happy, and I assume benefit somehow from the status quo?

Or else you just like building and knocking straw men?

Id be ashamed to be you with opinions like that. You are no patriot.

Come on, whats your big idea to make this country a slightly better place for the normal citizen?

edit, how old are you? 18 ??

Edit 2 , that's some heavy topics you post on by the way, real intellectual colossus.....

DistanceVector · 21-02-2014 01:50AM

Jim van Morrison wrote: »

You mean, "keep, quite like good little proles"? Keep what? Or did you mean "quiet"?

Are you seriously going grammar Nazi? to$$er. My spelling suck ass, always has, always will. How about addressing the content of my post. Petty Petty Petty.

DistanceVector · 21-02-2014 01:51AM

Sorry, that to$$er should have a capital T.

KyussBishop · 21-02-2014 03:01AM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hadn't heard of him until now, would like to know the details of the meeting between himself and the regulatory authority

The sparse story seems to have been largely hijacked by crazies, so apart from an interview and a couple of news articles there's very little in the way of actual objective info on the whole thing

Also, in fairness, his twitter feed isn't exactly doing him any favours in the credibility department

Don't think I would be taking to the streets over something like this unless I had some serious solid info

If you're going to try and smear him and attack his credibility, you're going to have to accuse him pretty much of lying - because he has provided the objective first-hand witness account, of seeing a fraudulent breach of regulations in a financial institution, and of personally experiencing the central-bank/financial-regulators, implicitly threatening him with being referred to the Gardai if he blew the whistle - and having his experience written about in several newspapers, by many investigative journalists, as well as having his experience put forward in the Seanad.

That's not a matter of opinion, and I don't give a toss to try and convince you of that, because - based on your current dishonest methods of argument - you are making it your purpose to pour doubt and spread FUD in this debate, and to deliberately selectively ignore content in peoples posts - which I judge as arguing with dishonest intent.

That is a judgment backed up by the content of your posts as well, by showing how you have deliberately selectively ignored what is said, where it suited your ability to ask purely rhetorical questions, that already had an answer - whereas your attempt to smear Jonathan is backed by nothing, just making implications without backing any of it up.

Your tactic is to:
1: Put yourself in a position where you demand explanations from other posters, for justifying protesting - despite nobody having to justify anything to you
2: Use this as a platform to pretend this discussion is about convincing you - nobody gives a toss about convincing you - so that you can act repeatedly 'unconvinced'

3: You deliberately do not care what anybody actually posts, which you have proven by selective quoting (cutting up sentences to remove parts, that make your reply redundant/contradicted) and ignoring of what people have said in their posts - your express purpose is to make an act of remaining 'unconvinced' no matter what - only responding to what you selectively ignored, when it is highlighted to you 3-4 times.

4: You spread this out as long as possible, over multiple posts and avoiding acknowledging the core parts of what is said to you, until it has been held in from of you so many times you can't ignore it anymore, in order to maximize the time you spend acting 'unconvinced' in the thread.
The purpose of drawing this out so long, is also to try and hide the dishonest methods of argument, by making it seem like there is a debate happening - when there isn't, you just ignore what is said, to keep on repeating your 'unconvinced' stance.

5: When you do address what is put to you - after avoiding the issue for as long as possible - you again completely ignore the core points behind what is put to you, only responding to pour doubt on the credibility of what is put to you (where that is opportune), without any backing - making it purely rhetorical.

6: All of the while, this act is for the purpose of pouring doubt on everything said in the thread as justification for protesting; the end result of this, is you trying to generally dissuade protesting no matter what, because you don't care what justifications there are.

You're basically setting up a platform for yourself, to engage in soapboxing to pour doubt on and prevent discussion of protesting - you are not debating with anybody, you only put forward the pretence of debate, as a platform for you to spread-FUD/pour-doubt.

KyussBishop · 21-02-2014 03:32AM

Potatoeman wrote: »

Working in the industry gives the applicant an advantage in that they know the industry. They should be bound by their contract to declare any conflict and be liable for any breach of their contract.

Yes, if you commit a crime you should be liable but because we didn't enforce regulation on those that were in violation of regulation in the first place and were in fact benefitting from it, we encouraged others to breach the same regulation. This is why the pillar banks were drawn into the developer market.

A huge part of our problem was that some banks made huge profits from breaching regulations and were not kept in line, so the large institutions breached the same regulations to compete. It's not right but they were drawn in as they wanted to increase their share values.

Coming from that industry is a conflict of interest. It creates a revolving door between industry and regulators.

Gardai don't hire businessmen to investigate fraud in business - you should not hire bankers/financiers to investigate fraud in banks/finance.
Gardai tasked with discovering fraud, study this topic in college - that's how financial regulators should be sourced; around the world, there are many well established courses on criminology in banking/finance, for gaining the needed experience/expertise.

It doesn't matter who was encouraged to breach regulations - the law is the law, and people/institutions that broke the law, are to blame for that.
Government are partly to blame for the wider crisis, but people who broke the law are 100% totally to blame, by their own, for breaking the law.

Potatoeman · 21-02-2014 10:21AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Coming from that industry is a conflict of interest. It creates a revolving door between industry and regulators.

Gardai don't hire businessmen to investigate fraud in business - you should not hire bankers/financiers to investigate fraud in banks/finance.
Gardai tasked with discovering fraud, study this topic in college - that's how financial regulators should be sourced; around the world, there are many well established courses on criminology in banking/finance, for gaining the needed experience/expertise.

It doesn't matter who was encouraged to breach regulations - the law is the law, and people/institutions that broke the law, are to blame for that.
Government are partly to blame for the wider crisis, but people who broke the law are 100% totally to blame, by their own, for breaking the law.

Im not against the regulator coming from a different field, I do think that the knowledge needed does tend to make someone from that industry more suitable but Im sure an economics lecturer would be capable too.

The problem was that they let the first banks away with it and that the others were drawn in as there was large amounts of money to be made. The regulators inaction made the whole issue worse. The compliance officier was fired for trying to make Anglo follow regulation and wrote a letter to the regulator, who done nothing about it.

The banks failed their shareholders but they are not responsible for the general public. Its the regularors job to ensure that they follow regulations.

Jim van Morrison · 21-02-2014 11:19AM

DistanceVector wrote: »

Are you seriously going grammar Nazi? to$$er. My spelling suck ass, always has, always will. How about addressing the content of my post.

There is no "content". The spelling mistake is all that caught my attention. Pointing it out highlights the fact you have nothing to say.

KyussBishop · 21-02-2014 02:49PM

Potatoeman wrote: »

..
The banks failed their shareholders but they are not responsible for the general public. Its the regularors job to ensure that they follow regulations.

Regulations are laws - you don't get to break the law and then say "well the policeman didn't stop me, it's his fault" - the banks weren't coerced into breaking the law i.e. breaching regulations, they chose to break the law for profit.

Potatoeman · 21-02-2014 03:07PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Regulations are laws - you don't get to break the law and then say "well the policeman didn't stop me, it's his fault" - the banks weren't coerced into breaking the law i.e. breaching regulations, they chose to break the law for profit.

They regulations they broke were over investing in property. They will never be charged as it would raise too many questions about why NIB and Anglo were getting away with it for so long that the pillar banks were drawn in.

Also the government were encouraging the property market.

KyussBishop · 21-02-2014 03:18PM

Potatoeman wrote: »

They regulations they broke were over investing in property. They will never be charged as it would raise too many questions about why NIB and Anglo were getting away with it for so long that the pillar banks were drawn in.

Also the government were encouraging the property market.

The law is the law (and some broke regulations surrounding capital requirements as well) - if you break the law, it doesn't matter if you think someone was encouraging that, it is the responsibility of the person who broke the law.

It's that simple. The banks are responsible for their choice, to break the law/regulations.

Potatoeman · 21-02-2014 04:31PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

The law is the law (and some broke regulations surrounding capital requirements as well) - if you break the law, it doesn't matter if you think someone was encouraging that, it is the responsibility of the person who broke the law.

It's that simple. The banks are responsible for their choice, to break the law/regulations.

Yes they are but they will never be charged as it would raise too many questions about how it was allowed to happen.

KyussBishop · 22-02-2014 01:53AM

Potatoeman wrote: »

Yes they are but they will never be charged as it would raise too many questions about how it was allowed to happen.

That's a problem of having corrupt regulators (remember, they are independent and can instigate prosecutions themselves) - perhaps because they have a conflict of interest, having come from the banking/finance industry...

Jonny7 · 22-02-2014 02:21AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you're going to try and smear him and attack his credibility, you're going to have to accuse him pretty much of lying - because he has provided the objective first-hand witness account, of seeing a fraudulent breach of regulations in a financial institution, and of personally experiencing the central-bank/financial-regulators, implicitly threatening him with being referred to the Gardai if he blew the whistle - and having his experience written about in several newspapers, by many investigative journalists, as well as having his experience put forward in the Seanad.

Yup perhaps this is all true, he's telling the truth and has been subject to a campaign of silence/intimidation from a corrupt regulatory commission

Or perhaps that is not exactly what's happened

Apart from his word on the matter, what's the impartial source on the bolded part?

KyussBishop · 22-02-2014 03:29AM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yup perhaps this is all true, he's telling the truth and has been subject to a campaign of silence/intimidation from a corrupt regulatory commission

Or perhaps that is not exactly what's happened

Apart from his word on the matter, what's the impartial source on the bolded part?

Right so exactly like I predicted in my previous reply, you were just getting around to accusing him of lying - which puts the burden of proof on you, not me.

You can forget your act of pretending to remain 'unconvinced' all of the time - got a whistleblower with his story published by several investigative journalists, across many newspapers/publications, and even having the story aired in the Seanad - your tactic of remaining 'unconvinced' by everything, is one of putting 100% benefit of the doubt and total lack of cynicism with perpetrators of fraud (as well as with institutions/industries responsible for the crisis), and loading maximum doubt and cynicism on anything that points to, suggests, or even personally witnesses fraud.

Sh1tbag OToole · 23-02-2014 11:07PM

Does anyone want to help me riot like a mad eejit tomorrow? Weather permitting of course?

We just dont get good protesting weather in this country

tonyheaney · 02-03-2014 03:51PM

teR_ wrote: »

You turn on the news and ya see all these countries around us that were/are in the shlt, there all running around like lunatics breaking things and burning stuff.

Here we are and we don't even do the peaceful side of it, am I the only one disappointed in our incapacity to do anythings?

clearly you dont remember this then: http://www.theirishstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/oconnell-bridge-riot1.bmp

or this: http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/mar2006/riot_011_1.jpg

Why don't we riot like mad ejits

Comments