Regulatory Agencies – Page 14

Electoral law? – Whatever you're having yourself

I wasn’t happy with the response I received from the Dept. of Environment, Heritage and Local Government to my complaint regarding Fianna Fail TD Eamon O’Cuiv so I rang seeking further clarification.

Specifically, I wanted to know; what exactly was the role of the department regarding complaints from the public in respect of suspected breaches of electoral law.

Me: As a senior official in the dept responsible for the proper enforcement of electoral law, have you any concerns whatsoever regarding these events?

Official: When it comes to electoral law we’re forever changing the law on electoral issues. Tweaking here and tweaking there and those tweaks always reflect the fact that there’s something not quite right in the electoral law, that’s how we generally respond to these things.

But in terms of the law there are two approaches, there’s what the law is at the moment and what the law could or should be and we do a lot of entertaining about what the law could or should be and in that regard we would be taking on concerns that people might express.

Me: (In growing astonishment at the answers I was getting) Is it a crime to submit a false name on a nomination paper?

Official: Life isn’t as black or white as all that.

Me: It either is a crime or it’s not or you don’t know.

Official: You’re using very emotive words. It’s the nomination process and you’re supposed to use the name you’re ordinarily known by.

Me: Are you not the regulatory body in charge of electoral law?

Official: Yes, we’re in charge of electoral law.

Me: So it’s up to you to investigate?

Official: No.

Me: It’s not? (Accompanied by astonished laughter).

Official: What I’m willing to do here and I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge is that law as made is never perfect, law is an ongoing process and should be reviewed from time to time.

The information gleaned from this official can be summed up as follows.

The department is forever changing electoral law, tweaking here, tweaking there.

(Irish) Electoral law is never static, there’s what it is at the moment and there’s what it could or should be.

The department is in charge of electoral law but doesn’t investigate complaints.

White collar crime does not (officially) exist in corrupt states.

Mr. Justice Peter Kelly was probably in his chambers going over the application from the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) for a six month extension to the investigation into Anglo Irish Bank when the truth suddenly dawned on him.

What the hell is going on, he probably thought, this is the 6th application for an extension to this investigation and feck all has happened.

And what about all those other cases that I and other judges have sent to the prosecution authorities with strong evidence of criminal wrongdoing, sometimes with outright admissions of guilt and nothing, absolutely nothing has happened?

Welcome, Justice Kelly, to Public Inquiry. Allow me to explain what’s going on.

In functional democracies serious allegations of white collar crime similar to those made against Anglo Irish Bank are dealt with immediately by the police and courts.

They are not side-lined off into decade’s long tribunals, handed over to virtually powerless agencies like the ODCE or those involved given the option of answering a few polite questions before a completely powerless government committee.

In dysfunctional democracies like Ireland allegations and suspicions of white collar crime are permanently parked, delayed until they become historical or, in many cases, simply ignored.

The most effective strategy, whether intentional or not, of protecting white collar criminals is delay and it is obvious that this is what is happening in the Anglo Irish Bank case. It is this strategy that has so upset Judge Kelly.

Another very effective strategy is constant but never acted upon assurances that action is being taken to make sure this kind of thing never happens again.

That’s why when I first read about the latest delay in the Anglo case I thought to myself – it won’t be long before some state agency issues a statement assuring everybody that action is being taken.

And sure enough, the very next day, the Financial Regulator issued a statement warning banks that Big Brother is watching, that from now on there was going to be very close supervision of banking activities.

I have been listening to such official drivel since the early 1980s.

How, you may well ask, was the FR able to react so quickly? Well, it’s simple.

The latest ‘get tough’ warning was actually issued last March and, probably, to reassure Judge Kelly and help ODCE get their extension, the same mush was regurgitated.

The bottom line is simple; white collar crime does not (officially) exist in corrupt states.

NAMA fails to deny very serious allegations

On the 27th January last Fianna Fail Senator Mark Daly made a series of very serious allegations on Today with Pat Kenny against the National Assets Management Agency (NAMA).

The allegations are as follows:

That NAMA is breaking the law by failing to hold pubic auctions or competitive tendering for the sale of public assets within its remit.

That NAMA is allowing some properties to be sold back for virtually nothing to the original owners.

That NAMA is facilitating a scam of monumental proportions whereby friends of the original borrowers are putting in false bids for assets thus preventing Irish taxpayers from obtaining the maximum value from the assets.

That the scam is happening wholesale and without any transparency whatsoever.

That the scam, although widely known about within official circles, is being ignored by the authorities.

That within the next six months the best properties will be cherry picked by the ‘scavengers and vultures’ resulting in a very serious loss for Irish taxpayers.

The following is NAMAs response to the allegations:

It (NAMA) had addressed this extensively at the Public Accounts Committee. We would ask any other person to advise us of incidents where they think this may be happening. For our part NAMA is determined to avoid such developments in so far as it can within the law as passed by the Oireachtas.

This infantile (non) response contains one crystal clear message from NAMA – We cannot deny any of the allegations made against us.

Pat Kenny ended the interview by saying:

We can talk about this but we cannot point the finger until we have chapter and verse.

This, of course, is ridiculous, the finger has been very clearly pointed. The allegations are extremely serious, they have been made by a public representative on live radio.

In a real democracy state authorities, including the police, would by now be conducting an investigation with the aim of bringing charges.

In Ireland – Nothing.

This scandal has all the hallmarks of previous scandals such as DIRT and Ansbacher where state authorities were fully aware of what was going on but chose to ignore events.

It proves that despite everything that has happened in the past two years nothing has changed.

For the record I have transcribed the full interview (with some minor editing) with my own comments and emphasis.

Today with Pat Kenny – Thursday 27TH January 2011

Pat Kenny: (Introduction)

It has been claimed that people who owe hundreds of millions of Euros to the banks are buying back their debt at rock bottom prices through third parties and off shore companies. Fianna Fail Senator Mark Daly claims some property is being sold back for virtually nothing to the original owners and that NAMA is not following legislation enacted by the Oireachtas.

Kenny: Exactly what are you alleging?

Senator Daly: It’s not so much an allegation as a fact. Under the NAMA legislation, section 25 of the Act, NAMA had to prepare a code of conduct for the disposal of bank assets within three months of the passing of the Act. The Act says that the sale of properties and assets including bank loans would be governed under the Code of Conduct for the governance of state bodies which was passed in 2009.

In that section 18 said any asset being sold to all the bank loans would have to be sold by auction or competitive tendering process.

Kenny: So we would all know about it?

Senator Daly: So we would all know about it. But the competitive tendering or public auction would obviously involve huge amount of advertising that we would see in all the property supplements but this doesn’t appear to be happening either. What appears to be happening is people who are in the know, the same people who are in the know who got us into all this trouble are aware through the banks, through the receivers what these assets can now be bought at, the haircuts.

In one particular case I’ve come across in the UK the original loan was twelve million, the haircut was six million but the asset itself was undervalued, was worth nine million really and the guy, the original borrower of the loan said to his friends; you pay the banks six million, they’ll be happy and we’ll sell it for nine and they made a nice three million Euro profit.(This is a serious allegation).

And that type of thing is happening wholesale because there’s no transparency.

Kenny: But why would NAMA want to do that, if the thing is worth nine million why wouldn’t they sell it for something approaching that?

Senator Daly: Because no one is trying to maximize the value because once the bank gets the haircut that NAMA imposed on them…(Interrupted).

Kenny: Of course, if NAMA impose a haircut and say this asset is only worth six million and it’s actually worth nine, if they have done that then they’re exposing themselves as having undervalued the property which means that they’re not being very professional about what they’re doing. (Extreme understatement).

Senator Daly: There’s a lot of shady behaviour going on here (VERY SERIOUS ALLEGATION) and if they follow their own rules as set out in the NAMA legislation and had a competitive tendering process or public auctions then they would maximize the value but what is actually happening is, and the banks and receivers have admitted this to me, that the banks have said look once we get what we paid for, the haircut from NAMA, we’re happy.

Kenny: This is utterly; utterly dishonest if that’s what NAMA are at. If NAMA, and I’m only saying if, if NAMA is applying a haircut that is greater than the haircut that the market would suggest it should have then NAMA is not doing its job properly.

Senator Daly: All the receivers, auctioneers and banks want to do is pay back NAMA the money that’s owed. Maximising the value is not really their concern.

Kenny: As a taxpayer it is our concern.

Senator Daly: It is our concern which is why the transparency that I’m looking for. First for all that the rules would be followed, that the law would be followed (Serious allegation).

Kenny: That it would be by public tender or public auction.

Senator Daly: Exactly, and that all the banks and the receivers would go through this process but they’re not even doing that because as you can see you are not looking at papers full of advertising saying NAMA property for sale (Serious allegation).

Kenny: What interests me more, they should do that and that’s something they’ll have to rectify not that you have pointed it out, but what is more sinister is that if they applied a haircut that is too severe, rather than the medium term or long term economic value of the asset which they would be in a position to hang onto because that was the idea they could hold it in a way that the banks felt they couldn’t because of their balance sheets, NAMA could hold it longer.

But if they’re just dispatching stuff to get cash in to show off how well they’re doing for instance but they applied too severe a haircut which means the taxpayer has to put more money into the banks which we didn’t need to do and that is the obscenity if it’s true.

Senator Daly: Well, the obscenity of it is on top of that, the banks once they’re quite happy to get the money that they owe NAMA aren’t going to go after the borrowers, the original borrowers for the balance of the money, they’re just not going to do it and receivers, talking to the banks, have admitted that to me (Serious allegation).

The problem with this is that I’m not an investigator, I’m not the Guards but then again we know of plenty of cases where it’s taken two years to bring people to court for very obvious corporate governance issues.

Kenny: Let’s point this out carefully. NAMA, was expected to make a profit, that part of the whole thing that at the end of the day it might turn a small profit. It was not expected to turn a profit in the short term, it was supposed to hang onto to assets and realize the value. If it’s selling them at under the market value, disposing of them just to get cash in then it is not doing the job for which it was established.

Senator Daly: Let’s be clear on this. When the banks are appointing auctioneers and receivers to realize the money the fault lies with them in that they’re not advertising at a very minimum the property for sale and saying; this is what’s available, this is the current bid that’s on it. The transparency is required because first the citizens and the taxpayers are entitled to know that the assets which they currently own through NAMA are being maximized in value and that is not happening (Serious allegation).

Kenny: And NAMA, if it wants to, like in any commercial auction or tender, they can have a reserve, if it doesn’t meet the reserve, if they feel they’re being scammed in some way…interrupted.

Senator Daly: No, what is actually happening is the original borrowers, in these cases that have been brought to my attention, are arranging for their friends to put in the bids. Nobody else is aware that this place is for sale because no one else knows that the original borrower and the asset is in trouble and therefore this is a scam of monumental proportions (Very serious allegation).

Kenny: NAMA has responded to your claims.

It had addressed this extensively at the Public Accounts Committee. We would ask any other person to advise us of incidents where they think this may be happening. For our part NAMA is determined to avoid such developments in so far as it can within the law as passed by the Oireachtas.

Senator Daly: Now that’s not exactly encouraging, is it? Please come to us with a file that we can send to the DPP. What we’re talking about here is the transparency required and they’re not even following section 35 of the NAMA Act to this must be open and transparent. The concerning part about all this is in the next six months the cherry picks, the best property are going to be bought up by the scavengers and the vultures (Serious allegation).

Kenny: You have not gone public on the particular deals that you are aware of, have you gone to the Gardai with them?

Senator Daly: The problem here is you need smoking guns; you need evidence, emails, cheques, money going over, phone calls. This is all quiet little chats in the corner over a pint. The guy who came to me on this had been approached at a dinner party to be the third party to buy a property in the UK and he would then be given a cut. He came to me because he was so disgusted that the same people who had gotten us into this trouble in the first place are now doing the same thing again (With the assistance of NAMA/the state?).

Kenny: Look, if this scandal is real, the people who are culpable, if these things are being sold to private equity funds or whatever, the valuers are the corrupt people because they’re saying this thing is worth six million to NAMA and then it’s being sold on for nine?

Senator Daly: The legislation says you must have an auction or tendering process and therefore it is now illegal to be selling any asset, the disposal of all these assets, the two billion that has been disposed so far, hasn’t been done properly (Very serious allegation).

This practice is so widespread that embassy staff know about it and it’s on the dinner party circuit around Dublin and elsewhere it is quite well known that there are fellows that are cutting deals.

Kenny: We can talk about this but we cannot point the finger until we have chapter and verse.

Senator Daly: The law should be followed; it should be done by tendering or public auction. The NAMA website should have all the assets, the loans that are up for sale, what they were originally bought for, what the current bid is and no asset should be sold within four weeks of it going on the website that way no one can say there was a scam, there was a deal done.

At the moment we’re not following the law.

Senator Daly: In the next six months the guys who caused all the trouble are going to make billions off the taxpayer because they’re buying property at less than the asset value because they’re arranging for their buddies to put in false bids and they’re buying it for less than the market value (Serious allegation).

Copy to:

Today with Pat Kenny
Senator Daly
NAMA
NTMA
ODCE
Dept of Finance

Shock/Horror: SIPO rejects Callely complaint

On 28th August last year I submitted a formal complaint to the Standards in Public Office Commission relating to expense claims made by Senator Ivor Callely (Complaint reproduced below).

I received a judgement last Friday informing me that the Commission found no basis on which to initiate an investigation.

My reply to the judgement.

Dear Mr…

Thank you for your efforts in this matter. I would have been truly astonished if the outcome had been otherwise.

Yours sincerely

Anthony Sheridan

The judgement is worth reading because it demonstrates just how slyly intelligent our politicians are when it comes to looking after their own interests.

I predict that this era of legal corruption is very close to an end.

(My emphasis throughout)

4 February 2010 (sic)

Dear Mr Sheridan,

I refer to previous correspondence to the Standards in Public Office Commission (Standards Commission) concerning a complaint about Senator Ivor Callely relating to expenses claims made by him while he was a Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children.

The Standards Commission sought and received copies of the expenses claims from the Secretary General of the Department, Mr Michael Scanlan.

It also asked the Secretary General to set out the relevant rules under which Ministers of State were allowed to claim mileage expenses at the time and to set out the steps taken by the then Secretary General at the time in his capacity as Accounting Officer to secure compliance with those rules.

The Secretary General replied stating that Government decisions of 16 September 1983 and of 7 February 1984 regulate the payment of mileage claims by Ministers of State.

He said that under those decisions the head of a department shall certify mileage claims for Ministers of State on being provided with a statement, certified by the Minister of State concerned, that the mileage travelled was for official purposes only.

The following are the relevant sections of the decisions:

16 September 1983

“3(a) that the new arrangements, in respect of Ministers of State,… should be made with effect from the 1st October, 1983,… that in all cases the arrangements under which they would provide their own cars in place of State cars, should be on the basis of a mileage allowance being paid in respect of mileage, other than that unrelated to their Office, and civilian drivers being provided by the state in lieu of Garda drivers”

“(b) that the mileage rates payable in respect of (a) above should be those applicable to members of the judiciary, subject to payment in respect of not more than 60,000 miles a year in each case,”

7 February 1984

“the Government following further consideration of the matter, agreed that paragraph 3(a) of that decision (of 16th September 1983) should be amended by the addition of

“such mileage allowances shall be payable and certified by the relevant accounting officer on the basis of a statement to be furnished from time to time by the office-holder certifying the total mileage travelled and related to the office in the car provided by the office holder in place of a state car, in the period covered by the claim.”

The Secretary General also stated that all payments were made on the basis of claims certified by the Minister of State concerned in accordance with those decisions. He said that on occasion some claims were queried by the (then) Secretary General but paid on the basis of certification by the Minister of State concerned.

Having considered your complaint in light of the documentary evidence provided, the rules under which the claims were dealt with and the observations of the Department’s Secretary General, the Standards Commission has decided that there is no basis on which to initiate an investigation under the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001.

Initial complaint

28th August 2010

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to formally lodge a complaint under the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995.

The complaint concerns an article in the Sunday Tribune newspaper on the 22nd August 2010 which outlined the following expense claims made by then junior minister, Ivor Callely.

Claimed 5,000 miles per month in expenses during his term as junior minister at the Department of Health even though he lived less than three miles from his office.

Claimed for the 5,000 miles (the maximum allowed) even when he had been out of the country on government business, including March 2003 when he was away for at least eight days on trips to France, England, Malta and Slovakia

Claimed the maximum allowed mileage for May 2003 even though he spent seven days in the US during that month.

Claimed for more than a dozen dining expenses at the Leinster House restaurant. These particular claims were questioned by the department but were eventually paid out.

I request that these claims be investigated to clarify what appear to be very serious inconsistencies.

I include below a full reproduction of the newspaper article

Yours sincerely

Anthony Sheridan

Martin under investigation – No worries

Just three days after being elected leader of the most corrupt political party in the country, Michael Martin TD, is under investigation (Irish Times).

Four citizens have alleged that Mr. Martin sent them personalized, unsolicited emails in breach of the law.

Of course, Mr. Martin has nothing to worry about, it’s not as if the Data ‘Protection’ Commissioner is likely to do anything silly like applying the law – the very thought.

No, an ‘agreement’ will be reached just like ‘agreements’ were reached concerning about 50 complaints made during the 2007 election.

Not a single political party or politician was made accountable for alleged breaches of the law, why would they have any fears on this occasion?

Even if, by some miracle, this so called regulatory body does act against Martin the maximum punishment open to the authority is a €3,000 fine.

This paltry fine is no deterrent whatsoever to a ruthless political party bent on harvesting maximum votes.

I wrote about this matter last week after the Data ‘Protection’ Commissioner issued a warning to political parties about breaking the law in this manner.

Let me reproduce the last two paragraphs of that post.

The failure to rigorously enforce laws by a wide range of state agencies over a prolonged number of years has led to the inevitable – political chaos, impoverishment and hardship for ordinary citizens and national shame in front of the world community.

Allow me to end by making another (mad) guess/prediction – not a single politician or political party will receive an enforcement order from the so called Data Protection Commissioner as a result of any breaches of the Act in the forthcoming election.

I stick by that prediction.

Copy to:
Data Protection Commissioner

Illegal election posters – What illegal posters?

Returning to the illegal political posters

I rang an official in Cork City Council to inquire what action had been taken regarding the hundreds of illegal posters around the city.

If a litter warden comes across anything illegal they will take appropriate action, we have only three wardens in the city.

Ok, but they must be aware of the law being broken by politicians and political parties.

We’ll take appropriate action against them.

Has any action been taken so far?

I can’t discuss with you whether fines have been issued or not.

I’m not asking for details of fines, I’m just asking whether the litter wardens have observed any illegal posters.

I’ll have to talk to the wardens about it.

Are you aware yourself of any illegal posters?

Well, I’m based in the office so I’m not out and about in the city, it would be the wardens who would make us aware of the posters.

What about when you’re traveling home, surely you’ve seen the posters. They’re up all over the place.

I haven’t been walking through the city centre recently and I’ve seen no posters up in the area where I live.

But the litter wardens, unless they’re going around wearing blindfolds, must see the posters.

Well, I’ll be talking to them regarding the situation.

Do you think there will be any prosecutions?

We always enforce the Litter Pollution Act.

He was intrigued when I told him I possessed the gift of predicting future events with 100% certainty.

No politician or political party will be investigated never mind actually prosecuted for breaching the Litter Pollution Act.

I promised to call him after the election to confirm my amazing abilities.

Law enforcement – Irish style

The Data Protection Commissioner has written to political parties to caution them about communicating with individuals using text, email or phone in the forthcoming election.

The Commissioner said that his office had received numerous complaints during previous election campaigns.

He said subsequent investigations revealed that contact details were obtained from sources such as sports clubs, friends, colleagues and schools.

Obtaining personal data in such circumstances constitutes a breach of the Data Protection Acts.

I rang the Data Protection Commissioner to find out how many politicians or political parties had been prosecuted as a result of these investigations.

Before ringing I made a mad guess that the answer would be zero and indeed that mad guess turned out to be, well, not so mad.

Here’s some of what I was told by a spokesperson.

If a company sends an email or text to a citizen without permission they can be immediately prosecuted, the law is crystal clear on the matter.

However, there is a special exemption written into the law for politicians and political parties.

In other words these people and organisations have full rights to bombard citizens with any amount of unsolicited material at any time of day or night.

Now we have to stop here and consider this special exemption.

Who made this decision? Was it a politician, a civil servant – or both? Why should politicians enjoy this special exemption?

Is it just another of those occasions where the law and state institutions are utilised (abused?) to provide politicians with an advantage at the expense of citizens?

But there’s good news.

Apparently politicians/political parties can be fined up to €3,000 (about five days expenses for the average TD?) if they illegally obtain contact details of citizens through such sources as sports clubs, friends, colleagues and schools.

In his warning the Commissioner revealed that he had indeed received and investigated numerous such complaints after recent elections so I put the obvious question to the Commissioner’s spokesperson.

Has your office ever taken action against a politician or political party for breaching the Data Protection Act?

No, it hasn’t arisen. You see our first action is never to serve an enforcement order in any of the complaints we deal with.

(Translation: Our first action is never to enforce the law?).

You’re confirming that you’ve never served an enforcement order against a politician or political party.

We investigated complaints in the local government and general elections but it hasn’t been necessary to actually serve an enforcement order because in each case, when we found out, they agreed to delete the details.

This is similar to the strategy adopted by the Financial Regulator when banks were found to be robbing their customers – just pay back the money and promise to be good in future.

This method of dealing with alleged law breakers is one of the principal reasons why our country is now facing total ruination.

The (Tammany Hall) system can be outlined as follows.

An activity is taking place that is damaging to the general public.

Laws are introduced and an organisation is set up to enforce those laws to protect the general public and the good of society.

If it is found that the laws are ‘inconvenient’ for some vested interests (politicians, bankers, property developers, solicitors etc.) a number of options can be considered.

Write an exemption into the law. This is usually buried deep within the legislation.

Ensure that the enforcement agency is provided with only minimum powers and is so understaffed and under funded that it will be impossible to carry out its remit.

The ODCE, presently investigating Anglo Irish Bank, is a good example of this kind of strategy.

Equip the so called regulator with Soviet style secrecy laws which debars any questions whatsoever. The Financial Regulator is a good example of this strategy.

Allow civil servants wide discretion regarding the implementation of the law. This particular case is a good example of this strategy.

The Data Protection Commissioner could have taken action against politicians/political parties for breach of the Act but chose instead to come to a mutual agreement

Ignore the law altogether. This is a very common strategy in Ireland. Ansbacher and DIRT are just two examples where so called regulatory agencies were aware of serious breaches of the law but failed to take action.

The failure to rigorously enforce laws by a wide range of state agencies over a prolonged number of years has led to the inevitable – political chaos, impoverishment and hardship for ordinary citizens and national shame in front of the world community.

Allow me to end by making another (mad) guess/prediction – not a single politician or political party will receive an enforcement order from the so called Data Protection Commissioner as a result of any breaches of the Act in the forthcoming election.

Copy to:

The Data Protection Commissioner

Daly and the 'deluded' banks

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha….Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ….Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah….Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…sorry, sorry, excuse me.

I’ve just read a news report that the chairman of NAMA, Frank Daly, believes the banks have put their delusions behind them.

Daly spent more than 40 years with the Revenue Commissioners and was chairman from 2002 to his retirement in 2008.

In other words he was a key figure for much of his life in an organisation that failed to act against the widespread criminality within the Irish banking system.

He was part of a culture that allowed banks to rob and plunder as they pleased without any fear of punishment whatsoever, part of a culture that ultimately destroyed our country and he thinks it’s the banks that are deluded?

The brutal reality is that the banks are not, and never were, suffering from delusions.

They were, and still are, well aware that they are operating within a hopelessly corrupt state which provides them with watertight protection against criminal charges.

This fact is obvious when we consider that, despite decades of widespread criminality, not a single official or institution has ever been charged, never mind actually end up to jail.

On every occasion when financial criminality is exposed by whistle blowers or the media, never by so called regulators, we get the same old false tough talk from so called state authorities that Daly was spouting today.

All debtors will be pursued.

Debtors who do not meet repayment plans will face foreclosure.

Debtors will have to provide a list of assets and spouse’s assets.

Debtors salaries will be severely cut.

My response to this bullshit?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha……ha ha ha ha ha ha ha………………………

Questions for Mr. Varadkar

I agree with Fine Gael TD Leo Varadkar that bankers have done more damage to the economy than the IRA and that they should be arrested and prosecuted.

We here at Public Inquiry have been hammering on about this matter for years now.

I do, however, have have a number of questions for Mr. Varadkar.

Why is it only now he’s calling for action against the vermin that have infested the financial sector for decades?

Is he not aware that financial institutions have always had carte blanche to rob and plunder the accounts of customers, even under Fine Gael governments?

Is he aware that as he made his passionate call for the arrest and prosecution of bankers that financial institutions still enjoy complete freedom to rob and plunder as they please?

Is he aware that the actions/non actions of the so called Financial Regulator coupled with Soviet style secrecy laws frequently has the effect of protecting the vermin?

Is he aware that all the protections enjoyed by the thieving vermin were put in place by politicians who are all fully signed up members of a corrupt political system?

Does he understand that the thieving vermin could not have robbed a single citizen or brought down the state unless they enjoyed full political permission to rob and plunder as they pleased?

Does he understand that Lenihan’s response to his call for the arrest and prosecution of bankers (files to the DPP bullshit) is just the usual delaying tactic employed by all governments until the matter is forgotten about?

Does he understand that it is the corrupt political system that lies at the heart of the disaster that has befallen our country?

Does he understand that in addition to bankers there is an urgent need to arrest and prosecute several politicians?

Is he not aware that the corrupt political system that has brought catastrophe upon the Irish people needs to be torn down and consigned to historical infamy?

No, I doubt if Mr. Varadkar is aware of or understands any of the above and that is the pity for this and many generations of Irish people to come.

Copy to:
Leo Varadkar

We don’t have a financial regulator in Ireland but if we did…

Did you hear about that ‘systems failure’ at Bank of Ireland? No, no, not the overdraft ‘error‘ – that was this week’s error.

I’m referring to last week’s ‘error’ involving ATMs.

I know, I know, it’s difficult to keep up with the ‘systems failure industry’ in Irish banking.

Anyway, last week’s episode involved what RTE described as silly people walking away from ATM machines without their card or money.

Here’s the RTE report (My emphasis).

But in 2005, Bank of Ireland was upgrading its anti-fraud technology on its ATMs and somehow neglected to reactivate the ‘automatic re-crediting’ process, so if you did forget your money, the machine took it back but your account wasn’t re-credited.

In October 2009, the problem was fixed, but during those four years there were tens of thousands of people who forgot their money.

Half of those people realised something had gone wrong and got in touch with the bank to reclaim their money.

But 44,000 didn’t: 14,000 of them were Bank of Ireland account holders, another 29,000 were other bank account holders using Bank of Ireland ATMs.

Today €1.3m has been returned by Bank of Ireland to its customers; another €1.7m is being given to other banks to return to their customers who were affected.

A lovely spokesperson from the bank gently explained that people did tend to get distracted by phone calls or their children – silly, silly people.

But never mind Bank of Ireland has come to the rescue.

Customers are to be fully reimbursed, enhanced procedures have been introduced to ensure this ‘silly mistake’ never occurs again, and, every customer is to be issued with a free, gold plated, apology.

We don’t have a financial regulator in Ireland but if we did the following question might have been put to Bank of Ireland.

Why did it take you four whole years to act on this ‘error’ when all during that four years thousands upon thousands of customers were telling you that the automatic re-crediting process was dysfunctional or to put it another way.

Why did you allow this situation to continue for four years when you obviously knew there was a problem that was resulting in significant loss to customers?

We don’t have a financial regulator in Ireland but if we did Bank of Ireland would have been heavily fined and the person/s responsible for the four year ‘error’ would be under serious investigation by police.

We don’t have a financial regulator in Ireland but if we did consumers would not be subject to a well established ‘system failure industry’ that ‘somehow’ always enriches the banks and impoverishes the customer.

Some bored and anonymous official within the joke organisation that masquerades as a financial regulator pushed the by now well worn button marked ‘standard press release drivel’ and out spewed:

The Financial Regulator expects all firms to have appropriate systems and control in place to prevent errors, or rectify them quickly.

Hey, did you hear about the latest bank ‘systems failure’? It involves an ‘error’ in overdrafts….

Copy to:
Bank of Ireland
So called Financial Regulator