Messages

[Doctors have a pretty large annual fee to pay on their contributions too.]

Doctors have a pretty large annual fee to pay on their contributions too. Their pension is not what some think it is.

Everyone should get a state pension.

Can you elaborate on this? They save tax but then pay a charge?

[I would in the strongest terms be denying it]

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who is a successful coach/manager with a successful team and my ex goes on line and declares to all that I'm am guilty of DV. Would I resign my role of the said team if i was innocent and the allegations were untrue. Would you? I am certain I would not be resigning, I would in the strongest terms be denying it and  going down the legal path and issuing a statement explaining as much. I would be forcing my employers to sack me so I could after them as well, knowing there is no evidence that will come out. I would not be resigning. Kinda makes it simple.

Which didn't happen in this case when he issued a response as far as I am aware.

The latter part in bold, we simply don't know what has gone on in hearings or in court prior to this as David McKeown has suggested, so there could be something there and the reason for no flat out denial or there may not be.

In society these days you are guilty until proven otherwise. Don't think Derry have come out of it very well - they could have issued a statement at the time along the lines of "we are aware of allegations and will consider our response and condemn all forms of DV".

Although maybe given the GAA's response to Shane King's situation they were reluctant to jump in too early.

[I didn't really want to go into this case , but it seems odd that he has custody of kids , and surely that involved courts/authorities, so why wasn't these allegations made during that process ?]

Yes but  That doesn't  mean these allegations are  true.

See now you're moving the goalposts. Nobody on this thread, as far as I can see, has said that the allegations are true or that Gallagher is guilty of anything.

Your point was to ask if you could just make up shit to get someone discredited and removed from their position. The counter to that is that serious allegations from someone close (for example, a wife) have to be taken more seriously than those of any old twat on the internet. Do you not see the difference?

I do see the  difference. But  my point was that trial  by FB sets  a dangerous precedence. 

I didn't really want to  go into this  case ,  but  it  seems odd  that he has custody of  kids , and surely that involved courts/authorities, so  why wasn't  these allegations  made during that process ?

Like I say ,  I really didn't want to  go into this , as it's clearly a delicate issue.  So that's  all I'll say on it.

Come on, are you really that naïve?

Her with an alcohol problem and possibly under threats of additional violence and being cut off completely from her children? You never heard of a similar scenario where a woman was afraid to go public?

If there were domestic abuse allegations with any foundation there is no way gateway/ social services would have given him custody. Regardless of whether the mother of a child has an alcohol problem. It's not a case of they have to go with one of the parents, if there are doubts over both parents the kids would go to a family member or into care. Not a chance a social worker would leave themselves open to recommending a child live with a parent with serious allegations hanging over them.

You give social workers and social services too much credit. Have been involved in similar circumstances through family and they have proved to be utterly inept and stubborn. A lot depends on who you get and indeed what mood you get them in. As alluded to earlier, one wrong word to them and they can have a child taken away instantly.

By the time they got involved I would say she was heavily dependent on alcohol and the reason they got involved. Then it's a simple case of "Who do we believe? Father who is a role model in the gaa or mother who is alcohol dependent?" It's easy to present a good show for a 15 minute visit or 1 hour meeting.

"Those marks? Sure she is drunk half the time and falling banging herself of furniture etc"

We've seen countless time of failings from social services were the child's life ends in tragedy.

His version of allegations being dealt with could be very different to what we understand i.e it was mentioned once in a meeting and nothing came from it.

I've turned this into a rant now, apologies. There is certainly a lot more behind the scenes than has been made public and I would say the lack of an outright denial of any allegations speaks volumes.

From the posts on here he was tan out of his club in Fermanagh because of this and everybody in Donegal knew too when he was there. How come this is the first we've heard about it? If these thungs were such common knowledge, how come he was kept in employment by Donegal and subsequently given the Derry job?

In fairness lads are hardly just going to start a new thread or post the allegations without it being shut down or deleted by mods and/or derided by other posters for unsubstantiated claims. I'd hazard a guess the difference here is the alleged victim has posted detailing her claims so there is now "substance" to the rumours that had been about for years.

If the rumours were posted without the Facebook post from last night, everyone would be asking what's the proof etc.

That poor baby Finley Boden and what he must have went through in his short life. Simply do not understand how anyone can do such horrific things to a baby.

Even more people drink alcohol.

All well and good but I would say the issue with cocaine is the illegality of it and the criminal enterprise behind? Not to mention f*ck knows what anyone would actually be getting in them wee bags.

Napoli are second favourites after Man city
https://www.oddschecker.com/football/champions-league/winner

Napoli going well in fairness to them, runaway leaders in Italy and should be able to beat able to beat the two Milan sides however they'll like be underdogs in the final against any of Real Madrid,Chelsea,Manchester City and Bayern Munich.

Surely not against one goal a game Chelsea.

If Chelsea reach the final with that draw they'll be favourites to win it.

How can they get to the final with 2 goals ?

1-0, 0-0

1-0, 0-0

Great draw. Napoli's odds surely dropped massively now.

[It's mind boggling how negligent and irresponsible they were]

They used long term instruments to fund (what became) short term liabilities

They didn't hedge their interest rate risk

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-news-today-03-13-2023/card/silicon-valley-bank-dropped-a-hedge-against-rising-rates-in-2022-6MiD9ZLVY9CF8zbIM7ze

"One point that surely didn't help: The bank reported virtually no interest rate hedges on its massive bond portfolio at the end of 2022. It terminated or let expire rate hedges on more than $14 billion of securities throughout the year, the company said in its year-end financial report.

Interest rate hedges are often in the form of something called swaps, a financial instrument that effectively turns an investor's fixed-rate loans or bonds into floating rate by paying a third-party. These can be important for banks like SVB because so many of their investments are tied up in fixed-income bonds like mortgages or Treasurys. When rates go up, fixed-income bonds fall in value, as happened with SVB.

Previously, SVB had boasted about its hedging"

It's mind boggling how negligent and irresponsible they were

Yea seems they were asleep at the wheel. No Chief Risk Officer since April 2022 and no explanation for why wouldn't exactly fill you with confidence about their Risk Management practices...

Nothing to do with Thiel and the Venture Capitalist crew?

How does what a "VC crew" did impact on the ability of a Bank to be able to honour their deposits when they are requested?

By telling everyone to withdraw their deposits and causing a run on the bank?

[The current bout of finanical instability is caused purely by the Fed.]

The irony.
The current bout of finanical instability is caused purely by the Fed.

Print loads of dollars in QE from 2019-21, banks invested a lot of these funds in Treasuries etc. Indeed due to liquidity regulations they are mandated to hold a minimun percentage of HQLA (High Quality Liquid Assets) in order to reduce their riskiness.

But because of all the financial easing inflation started to run away, so then the Fed rapidly raised rates as well as remove approx $1tn from the system by way of QT.
Due to the rapid rise in interest rates the market value of the Treasuries fall.  The rising interest rates also cause businesses to struggle (this is one of the prescriptions for reducing inflation) which means there is less cash deposited at banks.  When account holders ask to withdraw their cash and the banks don't have sufficient cash on hand (due to fractional reserve banking) then they need to sell their assets to raise the cash.  But their assets are now worth less due to higher interest rates.  This means the banks lose money so then try to raise fresh equity, but this then spooks the market and a bank run starts.

Every single aspect of that is caused by the Fed / Central Bank actions, not crypto.  How did they not realise that increasing rates from 0% to 5% wouldn't result in these issues with huge chunks of banks' assets having to be marked to market?

Given the way the Fed has used this to close down Signature Bank (even though it supposedly wasn't in that much trouble) as it and Silvergate were the two most crypto friendly banks it is hard not to wonder if we are approaching the 3rd stage of the below Mahatma Gandi quote:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

How does the Fed / Central Bank get the trains back on the track? The QE started in 2019 due to worsening conditions in the Repo market, the printing resulted in rising asset prices and really high inflation. They raise rates for 12 months and reduce their balance sheet for 7 or 8 months and we now end up in this crisis.  I'm sure they'll go back to easing again, indeed it could perhaps already be said that easy has started again yesterday with banks able to post their under water collateral with the Fed to borrow the full nominal value.  What happens when inflation goes crazy again?
I've said for a couple of years here that I don't know if Bitcoin is the answer, but the current system seems to be running on fumes and I'm happy to take a punt on Bitcoin given the evidence before me.

Nothing to do with Thiel and the Venture Capitalist crew?

So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

Ok

Virtually no football coverage now across all platforms today now. What a c**k up by the BBC.

Man United fans wishing it happened last weekend 

And Liverpool fans glad it happened today!

So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

[but it seems to be your fall back position every time]

Having no tenants is not a problem. You sell the place tomorrow.

You agreed it's idiotic to advocate for renting a property without collecting rent but it seems to be your fall back position every time. Please clarify, where tenants are in situ what's an acceptable loss over the course of a year on rent collection? 75%, 50%? If expected rent is 0% you're contradicting yourself.

Property and shares are not comparable. Property is bricks and mortar, lower yield, lower risk but less liquid. Higher maintenance, slower to dispose of and when you do it's all or nothing. You can't partially sell a house. Shares are higher yield, zero maintenance, can be immediately liquidised either partially or fully but are higher risk and can literally disappear into thin air in a moment.

something tells me you have a bit of a prejudice against landlords.

Think you're picking me up wrong. I'm not at all saying anyone should rent a property and not collect rent - I'm saying in the event that no rental income is there (whatever the reason - vacant property, non payment etc), the landlord should be able to afford their mortgage repayments. Very different things.

It's the principle of there being a risk of losing money in shares & property I was hinting at - not the actual investment vehicle itself. On that though, how can you "sell the place tomorrow" and also say property is "slower to dispose"?

No prejudice against landlords at all - just no sympathy!