Quinn Insurance in Administration

screenexile · April 17, 2014, 10:29:52 PM

Would the fact the 2 lads were found not guilty of illegal lending to the Quinn's not put a hole in the Quinn case against Anglo??

supersarsfields · April 17, 2014, 10:35:06 PM

It'll certainly not help. Had they been guilty the Quinn's case would have been much stronger. But don't think it completely scuppers their case either. But if I was them I wouldn't be feeling confident.

AQMP · April 17, 2014, 11:34:23 PM

Quote from: supersarsfields on April 17, 2014, 10:08:18 PM
Kevin lunney would have had no involvement in the Anglo dealings as far as I'm aware, so wouldn't hold much responsibility in relation to the Group being taken over.

Yes, but did his management of the insurance co not leave a bit to be desired or was that all down to SQ?

theskull1 · April 18, 2014, 12:42:06 AM

Quote from: supersarsfields on April 17, 2014, 09:05:15 PM
I would doubt it. Do you think they should?

Would be ungrateful if they didn't surely? They would have lost their livelihood if it wasn't for the "scumbags" doing the dirty work on their behalf.
Wonder of this is going to become normal behaviour?

supersarsfields · April 18, 2014, 07:04:46 AM

Rather strange view to take on it. Do you think the RUC should have thanked the IRA for getting more over time as well?

theskull1 · April 18, 2014, 07:56:03 AM

Strange maybe to you but an ugly truth to me. They'd be out of a job if it wasn't for the gangsters looking after their (own) interests. You'd agree that to be the case? Sure you've already stated it

The answer to your poor analogy is no. Local residents weren't the targets of these boyos so very different.

supersarsfields · April 18, 2014, 08:10:14 AM

I think you'll find there was local residents at risk when attacks were happening on the Quinn group. You seem to be equating the fact that as the outcome of the terrorist attack was beneficial to the local area that they would agree with any means necessary to achieve that outcome. As I've shown it's nonsense, much the same as asking the RUC to thank the IRA.

supersarsfields · April 18, 2014, 09:04:35 AM

Quote from: AQMP on April 17, 2014, 11:34:23 PM
Quote from: supersarsfields on April 17, 2014, 10:08:18 PM
Kevin lunney would have had no involvement in the Anglo dealings as far as I'm aware, so wouldn't hold much responsibility in relation to the Group being taken over.

Yes, but did his management of the insurance co not leave a bit to be desired or was that all down to SQ?

The insurance company would have been fine apart from the query over the cross guarantees. And the regulator hasn't been able to prove why he made that decision despite being asked multiple times to provide the info. The removal of the money from QIL was all down to SQ. (800M legally and 288M illegally)

theskull1 · April 18, 2014, 10:58:07 AM

Quote from: supersarsfields on April 18, 2014, 08:10:14 AM
I think you'll find there was local residents at risk when attacks were happening on the Quinn group. You seem to be equating the fact that as the outcome of the terrorist attack was beneficial to the local area that they would agree with any means necessary to achieve that outcome. As I've shown it's nonsense, much the same as asking the RUC to thank the IRA.

OK, a few security guards were caught in the crossfire but many in the area would no doubt believe that their threats and attacks were for the greater good?

The intimidation and attacks were made to scare off outside interests in these businesses. As a result of achieving what they set out to do they've helped secure employment (so it would seem) in the local area. Surely the local population have these boys to thank for that regardless of how uncomfortable they might feel about it?

supersarsfields · April 18, 2014, 11:17:06 AM

Again your trying in a mealy mouthed way to imply there was support for the attacks in the local area, which there wasn't. As I've pointed out it's like getting the RUC to thank the IRA for extra over time.
It wasn't just security guards that were at risk. There were staff in the factories at the time of some of the attacks.

theskull1 · April 18, 2014, 12:07:06 PM

Quote from: supersarsfields on April 18, 2014, 11:17:06 AM
Again your trying in a mealy mouthed way to imply there was support for the attacks in the local area, which there wasn't. As I've pointed out it's like getting the RUC to thank the IRA for extra over time.
It wasn't just security guards that were at risk. There were staff in the factories at the time of some of the attacks.

If they believed that jobs were at risk, I believe all sizable number supported the means to an end but will never ever admit to such an ugly truth. Whats mealy mouthed about that?

supersarsfields · April 18, 2014, 12:10:46 PM

That's not mealy mouthed. As you've finally came out and said it. Your posts previous to that were.

Would you support any means neccessary to protect your job?

orangeman · April 18, 2014, 12:32:35 PM

It'll all come out in the wash hopefully.

theskull1 · April 18, 2014, 01:05:09 PM

Quote from: supersarsfields on April 18, 2014, 12:10:46 PM
That's not mealy mouthed. As you've finally came out and said it. Your posts previous to that were.

Would you support any means necessary to protect your job?

Any? No

My "any" would stop at point that pure thuggery is deemed to be the means to protect it. Not a world I'd consciously be happy to exist in and 'benefit' from.

supersarsfields · April 18, 2014, 01:07:45 PM

Quote from: theskull1 on April 18, 2014, 01:05:09 PM
Quote from: supersarsfields on April 18, 2014, 12:10:46 PM
That's not mealy mouthed. As you've finally came out and said it. Your posts previous to that were.

Would you support any means necessary to protect your job?

Any? No

My "any" would stop at point that pure thuggery is deemed to be the means to protect it. Not a world I'd consciously be happy to exist in and 'benefit' from.

Exactly, so why would you think other people wouldn't be of the same opinion as you?