Quinn Insurance in Administration

[T Fearon]

He was censured by the Vatican a while back but made it clear he would not be silenced.p***k of the highest (Holy) Orders! If it was one of his poorer neighbours who was about to be thrown onto the street for mortage arrears,I'd bet he'd be nowhere to be seen.

[haranguerer]

He was censured by the Vatican a while back but made it clear he would not be silenced.p***k of the highest (Holy) Orders! If it was one of his poorer neighbours who was about to be thrown onto the street for mortage arrears,I'd bet he'd be nowhere to be seen.

f**k, I dont know many poorer than SQ now!!

[T Fearon]

Poor? Hiding millions worth of assets,enjoying the income these assets are earning,and each member of the family allocated thousands in living allowances every month? Poor? Dont make me laugh.

[rrhf]

Just imagine that you had brains to burn tony what would you do. Have a barbie?

[gaaboard]

Topic merged.
No need to start a new one on a subject that already had a very active discussion going.

[Tony Baloney]

Topic merged.
No need to start a new one on a subject that already had a very active discussion going.

Novel. Hardy was wondering if you could merge all the soccer threads.

[LeoMc]

Well there you go. He believes there is no personal gaurantee, the contempt charge stems from this.

So your post earlier was missing a vital piece of information - you attempted to portray the whole affair as though Quinn agreed with everything that had happened to him, and accepted it, including the contempt, and that 'some lads' were pretty stupid not to have realised this.

But as you've kindly pointed out, he actually didnt really agree with everything, did he?

Perhaps if you read what I said.  I said he accepted that he gambled and lost the Quinn group and that he accepted the Regulators were correct in their taking over Quinn Insurance.

I said he admitted the contempt. I did not say he accepted it, the upcoming court case comes from his not accepting that the loans were personal and as you note I have already stated this so I am not sure what vital piece of information I was missing.

The contempt comes from his acting in defiance of a ruling by the courts.

Could you also point out where I said some lads were pretty stupid?

Leo, SQ never admitted the regulator was right in taking over QIL. He said he agreed with the regulator for fining him and forcing him to stand down from QIL. He has never agreed with the regulators decision and method to taking over QIL.

Maybe I am picking this up wrong. SQ was ousted from QIL because he was using QIL reserves to support other aspects of the business which would have been a legitimate tactic within the Quinn Group but is against the rules for the Insurance Industry. As you say he agreed with this decision.

Are Anglo claiming that the loans were against QIL as well as the Quinn Group and the Quinn family while SQ is disputing that the loans were against QIL (and the family)  or is there another element to this I am missing?

[Maguire01]

He was censured by the Vatican a while back but made it clear he would not be silenced.p***k of the highest (Holy) Orders! If it was one of his poorer neighbours who was about to be thrown onto the street for mortage arrears,I'd bet he'd be nowhere to be seen.

f**k, I dont know many poorer than SQ now!!

Are you having a laugh?!

[LeoMc]

Poetic licence, but only mild, on my part, I believe the actual quote was theres a few boys on here who dont seem to have got their heads round this yet.

I read what you said - the point I'm making is that its what you didnt say that was important - the impression you were attempting to give was that quinn had accepted everything levelled at him, agreed with the sanctions against him, and then just showed blatant contempt for the court with no (whether correct or incorrect) excuse or believed extenuating circumstances for doing so.

You didnt clarify the contempt and what it related to until you were called on it.

I have been trying to be clear and unambiguous throughout this, trying to lay out facts without the hyperbole. There are a lot of grey areas, both legal and moral in this whole sorry mess. My comment was on boys who were commenting and taking sides based on headlines or who was at the rally, though as SS has pointed out I have a few gaps in my knowledge on the story.

I would have had a lot of sympathy for SQ. Whilst not condoning his gamble on Anglo I don't believe he would have made the gamble if the books were clean. However it is the actions in contempt of court which would make me look much less sympathetically towards his plight. As a few have noted on here any attempt to move the assets prior to the injunction could be argued as fair game but not once the courts had ruled.

That I would have to clarify what the contempt charge was related to would maybe support my belief there are people arguing without a knowledge of the issues.

[supersarsfields]

Well there you go. He believes there is no personal gaurantee, the contempt charge stems from this.

So your post earlier was missing a vital piece of information - you attempted to portray the whole affair as though Quinn agreed with everything that had happened to him, and accepted it, including the contempt, and that 'some lads' were pretty stupid not to have realised this.

But as you've kindly pointed out, he actually didnt really agree with everything, did he?

Perhaps if you read what I said.  I said he accepted that he gambled and lost the Quinn group and that he accepted the Regulators were correct in their taking over Quinn Insurance.

I said he admitted the contempt. I did not say he accepted it, the upcoming court case comes from his not accepting that the loans were personal and as you note I have already stated this so I am not sure what vital piece of information I was missing.

The contempt comes from his acting in defiance of a ruling by the courts.

Could you also point out where I said some lads were pretty stupid?

Leo, SQ never admitted the regulator was right in taking over QIL. He said he agreed with the regulator for fining him and forcing him to stand down from QIL. He has never agreed with the regulators decision and method to taking over QIL.

Maybe I am picking this up wrong. SQ was ousted from QIL because he was using QIL reserves to support other aspects of the business which would have been a legitimate tactic within the Quinn Group but is against the rules for the Insurance Industry. As you say he agreed with this decision.

Are Anglo claiming that the loans were against QIL as well as the Quinn Group and the Quinn family while SQ is disputing that the loans were against QIL (and the family)  or is there another element to this I am missing?

SQ was removed from the QIL for his involvement in transfering money from QIL. He was forced to stand down as chairman and was removed from the board of Directors (And fined). But the company was still maintained in the Quinn family. This was all previous to the April 2010 take over by the regulator.
The Regulator took action when going through the QIL's books and realised that there was cross liabilities over assets held by the Group and assets held by QIL. In fairness these cross liabilities had been in place for a few years and had been missed by QIL's auditors (PWC) aswell. And that was the reason the regulator took action against QIL forcing it into administration.

Actually here's a half decent article that actually outlines most of the information and actually includes the Quinns side to a certain extent ( Tho is far from pro Quinn as you'll see)

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/tom-lyons-death-of-a-company-and-a-desperate-mans-hopes-3189913.html


I'd say there are few who do know the whole picture with regards to what has happened Leo. I know I certainly don't. When the cases are heard next year a few more facts and figures may come out. But to be honest I doubt that we'll ever hear the full story. And even if we do, I don't believe it'll be accepted by both sides leaving the debate to rumble on.

[LeoMc]

SQ was removed from the QIL for his involvement in transfering money from QIL. He was forced to stand down as chairman and was removed from the board of Directors (And fined). But the company was still maintained in the Quinn family. This was all previous to the April 2010 take over by the regulator.
The Regulator took action when going through the QIL's books and realised that there was cross liabilities over assets held by the Group and assets held by QIL. In fairness these cross liabilities had been in place for a few years and had been missed by QIL's auditors (PWC) aswell. And that was the reason the regulator took action against QIL forcing it into administration.

I'd say there are few who do know the whole picture with regards to what has happened Leo. I know I certainly don't. When the cases are heard next year a few more facts and figures may come out. But to be honest I doubt that we'll ever hear the full story. And even if we do, I don't believe it'll be accepted by both sides leaving the debate to rumble on.

Cheers, my take on that would be that Anglo are using some questionable accounting practices to try to drag QIL into the mess so that may be one more grey area SQ has to fight on.
As you say there is a lot more to come out and it may not all come out but boys rushing to judgement without the facts would be my contribution to the Grinds my gears thread.

[T Fearon]

I object to this thread merging.Brian D'Arcy was/is worth a thread of his own and the issue was not specifically about his support for Quinn but his media hoorism in general and bringing himself his church and vocation into disrepute by supporting dubious causes/people

[Nally Stand]

I object to this thread merging.Brian D'Arcy was/is worth a thread of his own and the issue was not specifically about his support for Quinn but his media hoorism in general and bringing himself his church and vocation into disrepute by supporting dubious causes/people

Time's a great healer. See how you feel about it in a few weeks. In the meantime, be strong.

[trileacman]

I object to this thread merging.Brian D'Arcy was/is worth a thread of his own and the issue was not specifically about his support for Quinn but his media hoorism in general and bringing himself his church and vocation into disrepute by supporting dubious causes/people

Jesus Christ, there was worse lads at bringing his "vocation into disrepute".

[Declan]

Gene Kerrigan: Quinn is no victim of a 'Dub conspiracy'
The rule of law must prevail over the tribal and primitive call to 'stand by our own', writes Gene Kerrigan

Sunday August 05 2012
OCCASIONALLY, while shopping in a supermarket or a department store, you might see a shoplifter being caught, held and taken away. It's never a pretty sight and one memory stands out. It was an incident in a Dublin city centre store.

I know shoplifting costs the retail trade big money. I know we're each responsible for our own actions. I know a policy of always prosecuting shoplifters may act as a deterrent. And I know the glib cliches about not doing the crime if you can't do the time.

But this was awful. A young woman screaming, pleading, begging to be released, promising, swearing never to do it again.

And, yes, I know all shoplifters aren't in dire need. Not all of them are stealing to feed their families. I know there are gangs who specialise in shoplifting. I know that someone caught may cynically shriek and wail in hope of being let go.

But that's not what this was. This was the naked shame and fear of a woman barely out of her teens. This was infinite regret.

This was knowing in this overwhelming moment how this foolish act would ripple through her life, through her family, her friends, her neighbours, her classmates or workmates. This was a young woman realising that being caught in this one act might forever change her relationship with all of those. To all who knew her, it would cast a veil of dishonour over everything else she was.

She was taken away, to await the gardai and all that followed. The rest of us went about our business.

This distressing scene came to mind last week as the nation was subjected to another kind of shrieking and wailing.

Sean Quinn's friends and neighbours can't be faulted for their loyalty. It's laudable to go to such a family and say: "Sorry for your trouble. Is there anything I can do?" It's right to say: "Yes, three members of this family have been judged on serious evidence to have broken serious laws.

"But this is not all they are. And we will help them through this hour of need, because that's the kind of people we are. And we know Sean Quinn to be more than a lawbreaker."

But that's not what the Quinn supporters in Ballyconnell said last week. And that is not what Quinn's advocates in the media are saying.

"We stand by our own." That's what they say.

Whatever they did, we stand by our own. And by reason of being good people, our people, whatever they're accused of, there must be a conspiracy against them. They must be victims of those despicable people beyond up in Dublin, bad cess to them.

That is not sympathy for someone in trouble. That is solidarity with someone caught doing wrong.

That is what Fianna Fail said when Charlie Haughey was caught lying and stealing. We stand by our own.

It's what Fianna Fail said when big chunks of money turned up in Bertie Ahern's pockets.

It's what the hierarchy of the Catholic Church said when they knew that people under their jurisdiction were fondling, punching or raping children. We stand by our own.

These were not expressions of sympathy, they were defiant displays of solidarity, with a concomitant display of disrespect for the victims.

Three years ago, when a Listowel man was found guilty of sexual assault, his neighbours made a display of solidarity in the courtroom, in front of the victim (who got a rough time from some).

"What about the victim?" a journalist asked one of the man's supporters.

Came the reply: "I didn't know her."

Over the past week, Sean Quinn and his brother Peter and a range of others have launched an assault on the victims of the Quinn family's actions -- the rest of us.

This has been accompanied by serious accusations against identifiable members of the judiciary, against the people now running Anglo Irish Bank and against the media.

Sorry, that should be "the Dublin media".

Because, you see, living above here in Dublin, in our mansions, we have a fierce hatred of all who live outside the Pale, in their thatched cottages. We make up stuff about folk with country accents, because that's just the kind of gobshites we are.

We're not genuinely Irish, you know. We're West Brit Free Staters, gombeens, sleeveens, slaters and twisters who burn with envy and revulsion.

And you can't believe a word out of anyone about Sean Quinn, unless they were born within five miles of his home and/or worked five years in his factory.

It's pathetic. We live in a little sliver of a country on the edge of Europe. Throw a stick out of any Dublin window and the odds are you'll hit someone from Kerry, Mayo or Meath. And if you're not related to them, you've probably had drinks, a fight or sexual relations with their cousin.

Yet, some seek to divide us by geography, by place of birth, by public sector versus private, by gender, by any mechanism that mobilises group loyalty to defeat fairness.

Sean Quinn continues to make very serious allegations. He states blatantly that the asset-stripping his family did was done before court orders were issued.

I spent some time last week plodding through legal judgements relating to the Quinn scandal. In particular, re-reading Judge Elizabeth Dunne's finding of contempt of court.

Did the judge get it wrong? Is she part of some conspiracy to do down the Quinns, corrupted, perhaps, by the Anglo people or Matthew Elderfield?

That's the implication of the Quinn bullshit that is being ladled over us.

Read the judgement. It's online. It's not John Banville, admittedly, but it has great characters and a staggering plot. Read about Mr Gurniak and Ms Puga, about Galfis and Finansstroy.

Read about documents supposedly signed in April 2011 -- but which the judge believes were signed two months later. The events are complex, bewildering in places, but the judgement seems to me to be coherent and convincing.

This is not about a longing to see anyone banged up. If that's the penalty, so be it. What matters is that the law of the land is enforced.

And this isn't just about the Quinns. We all are being asset-stripped to protect the interests of careless, greedy people.

Four years after all this began, I'm tired of being lectured on what wonderful chaps they all are.

We've seen the Quinns at work, a once powerful family taking on the legitimacy of the courts.

We've seen Sean Quinn blustering, waving aside inconvenient facts. To answer cold, hard evidence, we have heated arrogance. Don't look at what we did. Look at who we are.

Tell that to the kid who is screaming for mercy when she has been caught with a pair of jeans stuffed up her jumper.

The old line from The Outlaw Josey Wales comes to mind.

"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."