06.26.07
Beverly
Lots of great comments but this letter in the IT amused me most
“Madam, – Dublin Zoo is seeking a name for its baby giraffe. In view of its extensive neck may I suggest “Beverley”? – Yours, etc,
PETER COOGAN, Temple Manor, Celbridge, Co Kildare.£
Honestly, Crewser….I won’t even list all the sins of Beverly “I have nothing to apologise for” Flynn…HOW can you find anything remotely redeeming in this episode?
The Crewser said,
June 26, 2007 at 2:16 pm
In relation to this Banking episode is there one person who contributes to this Blog who can say that it is right that an employee (and a young employee at that) of a Bank should be held responsible for the activities of the Senior Executives of that Bank who might after due consideration come up with policy initiatives such as those which were in vogue when Beverley Flynn was in NIB.
Now folks put away you Civil War politics for this one and respond to the above scenario.If this was a Fine Gael politician there would be weeping for them on this site. Lets have an honest appraisal Sarah and no smearing comments as we have on your headed item today.
Sarah said,
June 26, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Is that the Nazi defence then? Well if she was only following orders, why did FF expel her, twice?
The Crewser said,
June 26, 2007 at 2:57 pm
She was definitely following orders, what else does a young employee of any organisation do. You should know that Sarah or are you in complete denial of such basics. In relation to expulsions from parliamentary parties that is an entirely separate matter as you know well. Internal discipline and all that. Its happened to lots of FG politicians over the years who subsequently went on to serve in Cabinet.
Ray said,
June 26, 2007 at 3:04 pm
“what else does a young employee of any organisation do”
- well how about obey the laws of the land instead of trying to climb the greasy pole of Irish Corporate Finance for a start. Anyway, if she is as biddable as you imply and is happy to break the law on instruction from her “superiors” do we really want her in a position of power with even more powerful bosses?
That said, she never really struck me as biddable … I always felt she was more of a self made woman.
Langerdan said,
June 26, 2007 at 3:05 pm
‘HOW can you find anything remotely redeeming in this episode?’
You asked the question Sarah and he answered. Why should he look for redemption where none is needed? The girl was just doing her job.
The real scandal here is that a months work cost nearly €3M. Looks like i picked the wrong business to be in !
Dave said,
June 26, 2007 at 3:47 pm
No wonder Ireland (was) the island of saints and scholars. We are a very forgiving lot.
Sarah said,
June 26, 2007 at 4:28 pm
ah-ah Crewser…not letting you off that lightly. You say she did nothing wrong.I say fine, Crewser, I totally accept your point (I don’t but for the sake of argument). If you are right, why did her own party expel her? Did they believe she did something wrong? (Leaving aside the High Court which didn’t believe her claims – courts still mean something to some people).
ben said,
June 26, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Either “Crewser” is a clever little joke or we are getting a rare, uncensored insight into Fianna Fail’s venal, grasping, malignant hypocrisy from the horse’s mouth.
The Crewser said,
June 26, 2007 at 7:03 pm
No mention of Q & A this week. At least Alan Shatter is one Fine Gaeler with a bit of class. Someone who can rise above the bigotry of blueshirtism which still exists within the ranks of that party. It is this narrow view of thinks which have relegated FG to the role of bridesmaid once again. But then Alan Shatter is a man of learning and understanding who will never be given a significant role within FG.
With regard to Bevs suspension of the FF parliamentary party there is nothing atal unusual in this. That all related to the secondary issue of losing a Court case and owing a large amount of money.When you can not pay your bills you will be sanctioned by your party, any party. But she was perfectly right to take the case. She had to , to try and clear her name.
But back to the primary issue. Bev did not set up the products she was selling, that was done by senior officials in NIB. She simply did her job.
RTE came along and did a hatchet job on her, Charlie Bird, George Lee and others. They set up a chain of events which resulted in the massive bill which Bev has now paid. If only FG had been so strict when Paddy Donegan caused a President to resign and provoked a constitutional crisis (drunken thundering disgrace remark) then died in the wool Fine Gaelers might have some right to put their head above the parapet on issues like this. Neither was Emmet Stagg sanctioned in any way by the FG led Government of which he was a member, when he was discovered frolicking with underage rent boys in the Phoenix Park. Some standards in Government these people have.
Conchubar said,
June 26, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Jaysus, Crewser I thought revisionism had gone the way of post modernism (“with O’Leary in the grave”). But obviously you are keeping it alive and well, you could earn a fortune on the NeoCon lecture circuit in the States. You should consider it…
Sarah said,
June 26, 2007 at 7:28 pm
“She had to , to try and clear her name.”
eh, but Crewser, the point is, she didn’t. She lost, remember?
The Crewser said,
June 26, 2007 at 7:59 pm
As someone who is very familiar the Court system, I can assure you that not everybody gets justice. At least 30% dont. That may be a frightengly high figure but believe me it is vey accurate. In any event the Case in question was not a judgement on Bevs role in NIB it was about something which emanated from that. One must go back to the basic question, is an official or an employee responsible for the Management decisions and policy of the Company. Clearly they are not. Bev should not have been subjected to the treatment that she was by RTE and they know that now, that is why they accepted the settlement of 1.25 million euro. There should have been no need for the original case against RTE.
joseph said,
June 26, 2007 at 9:29 pm
sorry to say this but am i the only one to conclude this guy crewser is actually nuts! insane, mad as a march hare, crazy as could be! A complete fruitcake!
Or the only other possible explanation for his illogical intellectually empty posts here. HE IS TOTALLY DELUSIONAL!
She is a disgrace to all the decent politicians, and yes that includes many within FF too. She is the personification of what is wrong with Irish poltics.
The fact that she is even being considered for any kind of position within government is absurd and to say the least disappointing. FF deserve so much better than this. Oh and if you want to delude yourself that she has not done anything wrong as she seems to believe, then consider this.
At best she showed reckless abandon and profoundly poor judgment by pursuing A a libel case in the circumstances in which she was hardly likely to win, and B to compound matters further she appealed it to the supreme court where she even less chance of a good outcome.
Now do you really think that such a person would be a wise person to trust government positions with?
NOT BLOODY LIKELY
Shame on the people in mayo who elected this DEGENERATE excuse for a politician. .
copernicus said,
June 26, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Crewser is being very careful to avoid mentioning the nature of the case Bev lost. According to him it was simply some relatively uncontentious litigation – two-sides to every story yada yada yada.
But Bev tried to rip off the licence-payers by alleging a libel where none existed. Given the difficulty of defending a libel action, she might easily have gotten away with it thereby forever placing the illegality of her actions beyond comment and scrutiny while pocketing a very tidy sum indeed.
As it is, when she gets promoted, we’ll be paying her bill from both ends, as taxpayers funding her excessive, unnecessary salary, and as licence-payers funding RTE’s ludicrous settlement.
JG said,
June 26, 2007 at 10:01 pm
From another IT letter:
“If the promised (and well deserved!) ministerial position is not immediately available, may I suggest that in the meantime Ms Flynn co-ordinate the “Ray Burke for president” campaign, or perhaps chair a committee to investigate the building of the “Liam Lawlor Memorial Shopping Centre”.
Quite.
liam said,
June 26, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I agree with Crewser – Beverley was only a young innocent employee starting out in her career at the time.
She should have turned to her father for advice. I mean, he was a Minister at the time, surely he would have known the right thing to do?
joseph said,
June 26, 2007 at 11:48 pm
“I agree with Crewser – Beverley was only a young innocent employee starting out in her career at the time.
She should have turned to her father for advice. I mean, he was a Minister at the time, surely he would have known the right thing to do?”
YOU ARE JOKING RIGHT?
pflynn? an even bigger scoundrel
joseph said,
June 26, 2007 at 11:49 pm
cute whoor doesnt not = young and innocent
The Crewser said,
June 27, 2007 at 7:36 am
Alan Shatter is quite right in relation to the lynch mob and the lynch mob mentality. There is plenty of evidence of it here. I will agree that Beverley Flynn made one serious mistake and it was this. In the slander case she should have obtained an undertaking from NIB (now Danske Bank) that they would fund the case in its entirety, to its conclusion. They were the people who were responsible for the products on sale in the Bank. Beverley Flynn as a young employee would have absolutely no control atal. I would say that she was badly advised by her Lawyers. But then its a very difficult thing to clear your name against media organisations and survive. Remember Albert Reynolds won his case against a UK newspaper but was awarder a penny in damages, having spent hundres of thousands in Legal costs. Slander is a bit like copyright in that respect, very difficult to get justice. But if Bev had sufficient funds to keep going in Court she probably would have got justice in the end. Thats why the 30% figure gets reduced to negligible numbers. But you need money and lots of it.
But I don’t think Alan Shatter or myself would make any impression on the lynch mob and the lynch mob mentality but nevertheless it is important that these points are made and made with gusto.
So just to get everything in perspective here is a summary.
Beverley Flynn was an employee of NIB and was asked to sell financial products as were lots of other young men and women.
The was not reponsible for formulating these products or for Bank policy.
She was picked out by RTE because she was in Public Life (none of the people who were still working in the Bank or moved into other jobs were so selected) and a serious sledging job was done on her to effectively end her political career. This was chiefly orchestrated by Charlie Bird.
Her political career was effectively at an end if she did not challenge the slander allegations in Court, which she did.
RTE brought out their heavy Legal Team funded of couse by the Licence Fee and won their case. The rest as they say is history.
If there was no sledging job by RTE there would have been no court case atal and there would have been no massive legal bill.
But the important underlying point is that a young employee of any organisation is not resonsible for formulating policy and should not be liable for the fall out from the implementation of any such policies. Beverley Flynn was so held resposible, wrongly in my view. But try to convince the lynch mob of that, its an uphill struggle.
Sarah said,
June 27, 2007 at 8:06 am
“Beverley Flynn was so held resposible, wrongly in my view. But try to convince the lynch mob of that..”
so the courts are a lynch mob? that’s a nice twist.
Boys, let’s just ignore our little troll from now on?
irishpancake said,
June 27, 2007 at 9:59 am
Sarah said
“Boys, let’s just ignore our little troll from now on?”
But Sarah, you invited comment by The Crewser yourself in your OP.
“Honestly, Crewser….I won’t even list all the sins of Beverly “I have nothing to apologise for” Flynn…HOW can you find anything remotely redeeming in this episode?”
I think he/she has some perfectly valid points, even though I might not agree with them, but he/she has a right to provide some much needed balance in this sea of blue.
Sarah said,
June 27, 2007 at 10:11 am
I did ask him, true, but now I am bored.
What exactly were the valid points?
I’d consider accepting the Nazi defence, but why should I if the Fianna Fail party didn’t?
irishpancake said,
June 27, 2007 at 10:38 am
“At least Alan Shatter is one Fine Gaeler with a bit of class.” that’s valid
“Alan Shatter is a man of learning and understanding who will never be given a significant role within FG.” valid
“Bev did not set up the products she was selling, that was done by senior officials in NIB.” valid
“If only FG had been so strict when Paddy Donegan caused a President to resign and provoked a constitutional crisis (drunken thundering disgrace remark) then died in the wool Fine Gaelers might have some right to put their head above the parapet on issues like this.” valid
“I can assure you that not everybody gets justice. At least 30% dont.” valid
If you want an example of Nazi-type thinking, what about this, from joseph
“Shame on the people in mayo who elected this DEGENERATE excuse for a politician. ”
Attacking democracy AND using the D word beloved of the Nazis.
Liam said,
June 27, 2007 at 10:54 am
“I agree with Crewser – Beverley was only a young innocent employee starting out in her career at the time.
She should have turned to her father for advice. I mean, he was a Minister at the time, surely he would have known the right thing to do?”
YOU ARE JOKING RIGHT?
pflynn? an even bigger scoundrel”
Yes, Joesph, I was joking. In fact, the reverse seems to have happened. Beverley was such a fantastic bank official that her father, a government minister, was turning to her for advice, as outlined in the Mahon tribunal in july 2004…
http://direct.rte.ie/news/2004/0721/mahon.html
patrick said,
June 27, 2007 at 11:00 am
Sarah, are you bailing out cause you’re “bored”? You started this rolling but the Creweser has put up some decent arguments that you cannot undermine. You did the same with the Fathers Rights issue. Once you’re beaten, make out that the subject is boring. You shouldn’t start something you haven’t got the tenacity to complete.
Sarah said,
June 27, 2007 at 11:12 am
the subject is not boring but sometimes the arguments are. I say one thing, the opponents says the opposite. They’ll never change my mind. I’ll never change theirs. That’s boring after a while.
Still no reply as to why I am supposed to accept that Bev did no wrong even though her own party FF kicked her out….
As for father rights, those guys are still arguing with me over points I never made, so what’s the point in going back there?
patrick said,
June 27, 2007 at 12:10 pm
If we accept that FF set the bar, then we must accept that Bertie Ahern did no wrong because they didn’t kick HIM out
Justin Mason said,
June 27, 2007 at 12:29 pm
‘Or the only other possible explanation for his illogical intellectually empty posts here. HE IS TOTALLY DELUSIONAL! ‘
another alternative: Crewser’s a bot. that’d explain why he never ever seems to stop posting…
Tom N said,
June 27, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Crewser’s logic is like this guy!
In New York last year I saw and heard a guy with a loudhailer telling everyone that Jesus was “African American” and that you should rid yourself of everything white including milk and sugar. He read selective passages from the Bible to support his point. A hispanic priest was trying to reason with him saying that Jesus was Jewish, and would have had sallow skin. He made the mistake of agreeing with the man that much of the iconography showing Jesus had pale skin was incorrect. However only one man had a loudhailer and he then kept shouting “Even my enemy agrees with me”.
He has elevated his own opinion above discourse, like my crazy African American friend. So Alan Shatter does not like lynch mobs. Neither does the Crewser. Great Stuff. Issue closed. We don’t need to look at the facts from this point onwards.
So the question is Crewser, at what point do you stop looking at the facts? This is born out perfectly by the “lynch mob”, “civil war”, “blueshirtism” rhetoric. These are all very valid points Crewser but at no point have the facts entered your discourse.
Tom N said,
June 27, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Strongly recommend Myer’s excellent article about FF mentality in today’s Independent.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/bev-fought-the-law-and-the-law-lost-thanks-to-ffs-core-values-798078.html
Tom N said,
June 27, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Think I have solved this one guys. The Crewser is Beverly Cooper Flynn.
See the note about spending a lot of time in the Courts…..ah yes problem solved.
The Crewser said,
June 27, 2007 at 2:23 pm
For Sarah’s benefit and also for anybody else who might decide to deliberately misread or misinterpret my words, the lynch mob I was referring to was the same lynch mob Alan Shatter adverted to on Q & A.
A representative sample of them contribute to this site from time to time. At least its good to see a few balanced and fair minded people have joined in today. And Sarah I would have a lot more time for you and your views if you dealt with specific points raised rather than the general and sweeping “troll” when the going gets tough. Fair play to Alan Shatter for having the balls to stand up and be counted.
Someone said,
June 27, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Crewser. You just libeled a journalist. All we need is your IP address and then get your name and address out of your ISP.
Tom N said,
June 27, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Name callin Crewser / BCF style:
Troll – unacceptable
Blueshirt & lynch mob – acceptable
Pot, kettle and a little touch of noir!
Come now Bev, that 1.5M you had to pay must have hit hard. Don’t lash back against Sarah!
If only we could get other former FF TDs in the west to pay what the owed. But then again Parlon negotiated the Ellis deal! Nuff said! Am sure that you have an opinion on that one too.
The Crewser said,
June 27, 2007 at 2:47 pm
More of the same from Tom N, skipping away from the points raised for obvious reasons.
Sarah said,
June 27, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Well all I know is that High Court and the Supreme Court told Bev they didn’t believe her and on foot of that the Fianna Fail party expelled her. Why precisely did they do this if, as Crewser claims, she did nothing wrong?
Tom N said,
June 27, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Getting a bit sore on this eh Crewser?
The Crewser said,
June 27, 2007 at 8:29 pm
The fundamental question remains unanswered and must be answered. Was Beverley Flynn as a junior employee of NIB in a position to dictate Bank policy in relation to the financial products on offer? The anwer is quite clearly no. No case was brought against her by any Financial Regulator, Gardai, CAB or anybody else. Lets make that clear. As I said before RTE put her in a position where she had to go to Court. There is another question which must be asked and its this. By becoming a public representative in Ireland does one somehow have to bear responsibility for the misdeeds of any former employee they may have had. The answer should be no but if anybody visiting this site can offer any other answer I would love to hear it.
Joseph said,
June 28, 2007 at 2:43 am
The creweser has not made any credible points.
Tom N said,
June 28, 2007 at 8:24 am
The Crewser’s consistent two fingers to the criminal justice system, the courts, the tax payer and the license fee payer, lead me to believe that she is quite involved in FF, or was at one stage until she was kicked out of her cumann when things ended up in court.
The passive agressive nature of her posts lead me to believe that we have one massive persecution complex on our hands here.
Sarah said,
June 28, 2007 at 8:34 am
na, just a troll and we are falling for it..
It so reminds me of the dynamic with me and my toddlers. They whinge and whine, I swear I’ll ignore them like all the books advise, then I can’t bear the noise anymore as it tears my stomach into tiny pieces so eventually I irritably snap back and give them whatever it is they want thus encouraging them to whine the next time they want something. You know you are doing the wrong thing yet you are helplessly pulled into the cycle of derangement.
sigh…Tom, if we hold tight, Crewser will eventually grow up and move out…..
Tom N said,
June 28, 2007 at 9:23 am
Laughing at the concept that the boys might grow up to be FF supporters. Every parent’s worst nightmare!
Sarah said,
June 28, 2007 at 9:25 am
well of course, if they benefited from FF patronage and cushy jobs and contracts, we should be grateful. It’ll make our retirement much easier….
The Crewser said,
June 28, 2007 at 1:31 pm
As one might have expected not one of the contributors to this site or the person who started the who thing (Sarah Carey) in motion had the guts or the ability it would seem to answer any of the questions I raised. This does not surprise me any more than it does Alan Shatter. We had the usual evasive comments from Joseph (but at least he is getting his promo for his religious site) Tom N who like Sarah when faced with answering difficult and serious questions decides to launch an attack on me and what I stand for.
The lynch mob in full swing. The Sunday Times would be well advised to have a look at the responses here, Im sure they will.
But the serious questions remain and they will have to be answered and they will be answered whether the lynch mob like it or not.
The Crewser said,
June 28, 2007 at 2:39 pm
To bring this saga to a conclusion I think it is important to take the heat out of the situation by looking at a scenario where the person involved is not Beverley Flynn atal but some other person who might be your sister or brother, son or daughter.
They go to work for a High Street Bank at say twenty years of age. The Bank has a range of products on offer to the public in the area of investments and managed funds.
The employee ends up in the Sales area and it is his or her job to interface with the public every day and sell as many products as possible. Remember that Banks are profit making organisations, they have shareholders and they have a responsibility to those to make as much money as possible.
The Products on offer have been devised and drawn up, not in the Bank where the young employee is working but in the Bank’s HQ somewhere in Dublin City.
Some years later when the employee has moved on to a different career in a different organisation it transpires that one of the products he / she was selling in the Bank was less that legal for a particular reason. The National Broadcasting Company (one of the State’s biggest Media organisations) is made aware of this dodgy product and decides to make a TV programme about it, featuring some of the people who bought the product. Instead of tracking down the Banking Executives who drew up the product in question the TV station for some reason or other decide to go after the young employee of the Bank (now moved on to a new career) They blacken this persons reputation to a serious extent during the programme, so much so that the persons new career is put in jeopardy. He / she feels so aggrieved by the fact that the TV station has singled them out in this way that they go to the High Court to seek relief and clear their name as they were not responsible for putting this product on the market but merely for selling it for the Bank under pain of being fired, for failure to do so. The case is a very complex one involving parties who were sold the product as witnesses for the TV station. The High Court finds against the former Bank official who is now deeply in debt but feels that an appeal to the Supreme Court is the only way of getting Justice. The Supreme Court upholds the High Court decision as the product in question is deemed to be seriously dodgy. The former Bank official (maybe your Son or Daughter, Brother or Sister) is now staring into the abyss and is two Million Euro in debt.
Question : Has Justice been served in this case ?
Sarah said,
June 28, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Not a bad stab at it Crewser (and remember I was a young innocent employee of Esat who got dragged before the Tribunal so I should be in a position to identify) and leaving aside the fact that ignorance of the law is no excuse but two points
1.The person knew damn well what they were doing. For example, here’s some testimony from Beverly in the High Court
” In reference to an NIB letter which referred to potential customers as “the people who have money invested offshore already or whose money is ‘Hot’,” Beverley Flynn told the High Court, on oath, that “hot” in this context might have meant “a person who was ‘hot’ for an investment or pension, somebody about to do business”. Riiiiiiiiiiight. A Hot prospect. Not hot as in money the tax man didn’t know about. Sure the poor girl didn’t know what she was doing. Puleeease.
Remember also that she disputed that she had ever sold a product to James Howard and the bottom line is that the High Court believed him and not her. In other words the High Court says she lied and the Supreme Court agreed.
2. Let’s say you are right, then answer the question I’ve been answering all along. Why are you trying to convince me, her political opponent? Why did her own colleagues in FF throw her out of the party?
Finally you are right about the NIB. Their behaviour was outrageous.
Liam said,
June 28, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Ok Crewser, I’ll address, if I may, some of your questions as fairly and as balanced as possible.
“Is there one person who contributes to this Blog who can say that it is right that an employee (and a young employee at that) of a Bank should be held responsible for the activities of the Senior Executives of that Bank”
No, there isn’t but that’s a red herring when we’re talking about Beverley Flynn, RTE and her libel case. She was “never held responsible for the activities of the senior executives of the bank” and no-one on this blog has claimed that. The senior executives have all been held responsible
for their activities and nine of them (including Nigel D’Arcy, Jim Lacy and Barry Seymour) were brought to the high court by the state’s corporate enforcer, Paul Appleby, seeking disqualification from acting as a director or senior manager. So, when you say “Instead of tracking down the Banking Executives who drew up the product in question the TV station for some reason or other decide to go after the young employee of the Bank”, this is blatantly untrue.
However she is responsible for her own actions.
She was named by RTE as one of the bank’s employees who assisted customers in evading tax. She wasn’t the only employee at her level named (as you seem to suggest) but, as she was then a TD she was obviously more high profile than others named. You may find that unfair but that comes with the territory of being a public representative (not just a person with a public life, as you say : there is an important distinction) and given her family background she would have been acutely aware of this.
She subsequently took a libel case against RTE for this where it was proven that she did assist people in evading tax, despite denying this. Your defense that she was just following orders was not the defense she took and her age had nothing to do with the case. She lost the libel case. During this libel case she was found to be a liar, an unreliable witness as well as a person who assisted others with tax evasion.
At the time, Bertie Ahern said, “We take a very dim view of this particular case, and we have stated that I think people are extremely annoyed about this and believe that tax evasion is wrong and encouraging others to do it is equally wrong. We take a dim and a very serious view of all of this”.
On her appeal, in 2004, Dick Roche said “”The adjudication in the case of Beverley was unprecedented. Her future is not in Fianna Fáil. I am not putting any equivocation or limitation on that.” So if we are talking about a witch hunt and a lynch mob, perhaps the leaders of FF should also be included.
Between the RTE programmes of 1998 and before talking the case in 2001 Beverley Flynn showed contempt for the Irish parliamentary system, for her constituents, for the Irish electorate and for the party she represented when, as chief whip, she refused to support a motion calling on her father to clarify the £50,000 payment he received from developer Mr Tom Gilmartin. This is hardly the actions of a person who was duly concerned with her reputation or with the reputation of the house to which she is privileged to belong.
Talking about your sister or brother or son or daughter is meaningless : if anyone’s family member goes into politics and expects to represent people then the same thing would happen, FF, FG, Greens, whoever. I just hope my relatives would have the good sense not to follow Ms. Flynn’s example and I can’t imagine they would be lucky enough to have a reduction of €1.5million in their costs should they lose.
But if we are to use your example of young employee mixed up at an early stage in their career, let’s say, for example, it was someone like Eddie Hobbs – early in his career he advises people to evade tax as part of his bank’s activities at the time (hypothetical scenario, Eddie’s lawyers). He moves onto his new career as a high profile financial advisor with a public life. RTE start investigating and find out this information. In the interest of public service, do you not think his early career role in one of Ireland’s most notorious banking scandals deserves to be highlighted?
I would also hope that if Beverley Flynn were a FG TD, Sarah would take the same stance on her blog as she has in discussing the case with you and others.
Luke Mc said,
June 28, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Wading in late on this one and Liam seems to have done my job for me but to quote Crewser himself –
“At least 30% dont. That may be a frightengly high figure but believe me it is vey accurate”
At least 30% is very accurate? This is the level of intellect we are dealing with.
My license fee is going straight into a known liar, cheat and assistant fraudster’s pocket. This is bullshit, and whatever moral relativist nonsense about “what if she was in Fine Gael” is a load of hooey. Where’s Michael Lowry now? In the arms of FF, where crooks naturally gravitate eventually.
For the record I am not a FG voter or supporter. The Greens ought to be ashamed of themselves and surprise, surprise – http://cuffestreet.blogspot.com/ has gone very quiet these days.
The Crewser said,
June 29, 2007 at 12:11 am
One again Liam and Luke Mc fail to deal with the serious issues I raised and simply let their prejudices shine through. More of the lynchmob rabble I referred to earlier. This matter has nothing whatever to do with Padraic Flynn or the fact that his daughter is Beverley Flynn. That is the first and most important point. The most pertinent question of all to ask is this, and no one of the posters on this site will answer it. Can someone who has done nothing wrong in their job have this position changed by a libel action which is precipitated by a media organisation whether that is a newspaper or a TV station? The answer is a most definite NO. RTE made a very pragmatic decision in accepting the 1.25 Million Euro. They could have got considerably less and possibly nothing. It was their intervention which triggered the whole saga in the first instance and they now realise that they should not have done what they did. If they wanted to hassle anybody, then they should have directed their fire at NIB. When we see Liam and Luke Mc using the kind of language they have used we know exactly where they are coming from. They have not the slighest interest in establishing what is right and what is fair. When one sees mention of Tom Gilmartin and the Greens in their respective pieces it is fairly obvious what their agenda is.
Sarah said,
June 29, 2007 at 8:48 am
I’ll answer this point
1. If it was an FGer of course I would be as vehement.
2. If you are wondering what FG would do in a similar case just look at their rxn to Michael Lowry. Within 24hours of his failure to pay tax being exposed he was ordered to resign from the party. John Bruton did not require the findings of a court, High, Supreme or other, a Tribunal or the Revenue commissioners to tell him how to behave. He also stated at the next election that if his election as Taoiseach depended on a vote from Lowry he would not accept it.
Tom N said,
June 29, 2007 at 9:41 am
Think it’s fair to say that the focus of this thread here is on the Crewser’s logic. This dovetails nicely with the piece on Bev. As stated earlier I am convinced that BCF and the Crewser are one and the same.
The Crewser said,
June 29, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Tom N its a neat way of dodging around the issues I raised but yet again neither you nor any other other poster will deal with the central issue in the way that Alan Shatter did.
Liam said,
June 29, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Crewser, you ask us to address the questions you raise and when we do you accuse us of having a lynch mob mentality. Could you please, for my benefit, point out my lynch mob mentality from my last post? You also mention the kind of language I use – again, could you be more specific?
May I try again to address your fundamental question again, as you seem to have missed my first answer.
You ask “The fundamental question remains unanswered and must be answered. Was Beverley Flynn as a junior employee of NIB in a position to dictate Bank policy in relation to the financial products on offer?”
No, she wasn’t but who has said she was? Nobody on this blog has said that. The officials in charge were all brought to the High court as mentioned above.
However, she was in a position to recognise that the products in question were assisting tax evasion. What she chose to do, ie. leave her job on a matter of principal, act as a whistle-blower (now that would have earned her respect!), or stay on and assist in tax evasion, were her decisions and she is then responsible for her actions after that.
She was also in a position to decide whether to take a libel action against the state’s broadcaster. She did and unfortunately for her she lost.
Look at it from RTE’s point of view. RTE carry out an investigation. They discover that a newly elected TD, as recently as three/four years previously, was assisting others in evading tax as part of a major banking scandal. Would you agree that they reported this out of public interest? Do you accept that the electorate deserved to know this? I would want to know this before giving him or her, FF, FG or whatever, my vote. Leaving aside “civil war politics” (you seem to be the only person bringing them in), any politician would find themselves in the exact same position.
Brendan said,
July 2, 2007 at 2:00 pm
great article by vincent browne in the business post yesterday re beverley flynn and rte. seems there are up to 1000 libel claims outstanding against the national broadcaster. brownes main point though was the ridiculous cost of going to court if you are libelled in this country and he reckoned that even the 1.3 million that beverley has to pay is grossly excessive for the amount of legal work that was involved. there is a constitutional protection against being libelled by anyone but you may have to bankrupt yourself to prove your innocence. odd thing is in beverlys case it is the national irish bank who should have been in the dock but they never were. the financial schemes they were selling were mostly aimed at rich old codgers of famers (who mostly voted fine gael interestingly enough) who never had any culture of paying any taxes in the years since the state was founded.
liam said,
July 2, 2007 at 3:21 pm
“odd thing is in beverlys case it is the national irish bank who should have been in the dock but they never were”
Beverley’s case put RTE in the dock, accusing them of destroying her good reputation. Are you suggesting she should have brought the case against the National Irish Bank? That would have been interesting.
If you are suggesting that the National Irish Bank were never in court, then I’m sure that that’s news to Nigel D’Arcy, who was barred by the High Court on 26 October 2006 from acting as a director of any company for a period of 10 years. And I’m sure it’s news to eight other bank directors who are currently fighting similar charges. I bet John Blayney and Tom Grace are also a bit upset that six years of work compiling the High Court report on NIB is not recognised by you.
Why should they also be in the dock for a libel case brought by Beverley Flynn against RTE? Could you clarify this for me please?
The Crewser said,
July 2, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I saw Browne’s article yesterday and I thought it was interesting. At last a few questions are being asked, presumably as a result of Alan Shatter’s comments on Q & A
It may be a bit of a generalisation by Brendan in relation to the farmers and the tax but its thought provoking nevertheless. There is some debate these days also about whether the same Lawyers were involved in giving advice in relation to the Charlie Bird programme and advising on acceptance of the €1.25 million deal with Beverley Flynn. I suspect there may have been pressure brought to bear from sources other than The Government respect of this matter despite Tommy Broughans suggestions to the contrary.
John of Dublin said,
July 2, 2007 at 8:59 pm
This all made interesting reading. In all honesty I have to agree with Liam and Sarah even though I’d for the most part be an FF supporter. There is no point in defending Beverly’s past actions any more…she was wrong in every way. She herself has said she has paid the price (well about 30% of the price – we pay the rest). Her arrogance and steely determination to go back into Government would be admirable if we were comparing it to a sports star coming back from injury or defeat to shine again. But here we have a person who knowingly led people to evade tax (it’s no defence to say your employers had that policy), had the neck to take RTE to court and then is not in the least bothered when our public money has to be paid out to cover most of her costs. Most reasonable people would be ashamed to be a public representative in Government after that. But not Beverly.
Does she deserve a second chance? Do her sins remain unforgiven forever? The people of Mayo have elected Beverly. Maybe that’s the main answer we all have to respect. Many of us may not like it but the people have spoken…the bastards!
The Crewser said,
July 3, 2007 at 11:24 am
I think we can take it that John of Dublin never voted FF in his life. Its a “flag of convenience” in the hope of being taken seriously on this site. To judge from Vincent Brownes excellent article in the SBP Beverley Flynn is paying considerably more than what could be considered reasonable even if its only a third of what was claimed bty RTE. RTE is supposed to be the National Broadcaster but perhaps they should be renamed Dick Turpin TV.
For Liam to say that it is no defence to blame your employers policy is so silly that the man cant be taken seriously. By John of Dublin’s logic everybody who worked in Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council under George Redmond should be in court, called to account for their bosses misdeeds.
liam said,
July 3, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Firstly Crewser, could you please point out where I said that that it is no defence to blame your employers policy? I think you’ll find that John of Dublin said that and I agree with him – however this is not the defence Beverley took. Secondly, a brief visit to John’s website might show you how he votes – if you scroll down a little he discusses this in some detail. Thirdly, and most importantly, Beverley Flynn was never in court to “account for her bosses misdeeds”. You seem to have great difficulty understanding this but considering you have difficulty reading this blog and John’s blog, that is no surprise.
Again, Crewser, Beverley Flynn was in court because she called Charlie Bird, George Lee and RTE liars. She was the person who initiated libel proceedings against RTE, which you would be aware of if you bothered to read even a brief history of this affair. The High Court decided that they were not lying but in fact Ms Flynn was lying. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding and that Ms Flynn had “no reputation worthy of legal protection”. Could you please point out where she has ever had “to account for her bosses’ misdeeds”, or where she has been “held responsible for the activities of the Senior Executives of that Bank?” They have all been brought to the High Court and have had to account for their own deeds, as pointed out above.
Finally, you have been extremely rude to John Of Dublin who, from his posts here and on his own blog, does not deserve it.
The Crewser said,
July 3, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Liam you can twist it any way you wish but the bottom line is this. A worker in a Company should not be held responsible for any fall out which may occur by their implementing the policies of that Company. The people who are responsible are the owners / operators, policy makers. What transpired afterwords in relatation to Libel Hearings etc was all an irrelevancy as the initial actions which related to the breaking of Laws of the Land were set in train by National Irish Bank.
It is therefore the responsibility of NIB to tidy up the mess which their actions triggered.It is they and they alone who should be called to account for what happened.
If RTE wished to pursue anybody they should have pursued National Irish Bank (the Corporate entity) and the Senior Executives who drew up the illegal schemes. These people were not hounded in the way that Beverley Flynn was by the National Broadcaster. The question is why?
John of Dublin said,
July 3, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Hi Crewser, just to make two brief and final points…
1. You seem to think that because I’ve a problem with Beverly that I’ve never voted Fianna Fail. You are sooooo wrong. I’ve voted 1-2-3 Fianna Fail for a long time now. Liam has indeed spoted my colours well from the history my Blog! But I’m not going to blindly accept absolutely everything with a Fianna Fail rubber stamp on it – and don’t forget that Beverly was elected with an Independent hat this time.
2. I’ve indicated that I DO believe she deserves a second chance in spite of me not agreeing with her behaviour – since the people have voted her to be a member of Dail Eireann. I assume you have the sense to spot that my final words were a lighthearted jest on Dick Tuck’s famous and often re-quoted statement.
Finally…thanks Liam for your kind words and sensible interpretations.
Sarah said,
July 3, 2007 at 1:41 pm
“A worker in a Company should not be held responsible for any fall out which may occur by their implementing the policies of that Company.”
what bollox. If someone breaks the law, KNOWINGLY, as we know from the testimony in her case, then they have to answer for that. If they don’t want to break the law, then leave the job.
Beverly was targeted by RTE because she was a public representative and a part of the government whose job it is to collect tax and spend it on behalf of the people. Their fitness to perform that job can be quite rightly called into question if they have previously advised people how to avoid paying tax.
And remember, Bev was thrown out of FF because the High Court and Supreme Court found that she was guilty of encouraging people to evade tax and BERTIE AHERN himself said that was unacceptable. She was not thrown out of FF because she owed RTE money and the paying of that money now renders her acceptable.
NOW fair enough if the people of Mayo want a liar and an arranger of tax dodging for their representative and if FF want such a person in their party, that’s fine. But stop trying to dress it up as anything else.
GRRRRRRR I did it again . Respond to moronic comments. When will I ever learn?
The Crewser said,
July 3, 2007 at 1:50 pm
John of Dublin I am in the business of being rude to anybody and Liam took umbrage on your behalf. I did not know of your Blog existence and I have taken the trouble to have a look. Your pieces are moderate and sensible unlike some of the “lowest common denominator sites” which are giving blogging a bad name. I am pleased that you believe everybody deserves a second chance including Beverley Flynn and if I was extremely rude to you may I take this opportunity to sincerely apologise.
Nobody has a monopoly on perfection and some of the World’s best have made serious errors and mistakes in life before they made massive contributions to society.
The Crewser said,
July 3, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Sarah, some people never learn.
The Crewser said,
July 3, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I see GG has gone over the top completeley. It must be post May 24th frustration or maybe he’s just realised that he joined the wrong party.
Liam said,
July 3, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Crewser I am not trying to twist anything, merely trying to deal with facts. If you could point me to where Beverley Flynn has ever been “held responsible for the activities of the Senior Executives of that Bank” then I would be extremely grateful.
As for RTE not pursuing NIB, I think you’ll find they did. The series of programmes in which Ms Flynn was named highlighted the practises of the bank. That’s what the whole series of programmes was about. Ms Flynn was one of a number of bank staff mentioned. As a result of their journalism, a High Court investigation was carried out which ended in 2004 and which Mary Harney, for one, found “deeply disturbing”. 19 bank staff, including Ms. Flynn, were named in the report and found to have assisted others in evading tax. Nine senior members of the bank were brought to Court. €59 million was recovered directly from people (including those FG codgers Brendan alluded to above) who availed of the illegal products being promoted by the bank. Since the story €854.2 million has been collected from bogus non-resident accounts. The IFSRA was set up, as Cathal Goan pointed out in his statement today.
When you say “it is therefore the responsibility of NIB to tidy up the mess which their actions triggered” I think you’ll find they have had to do this.
You are making it out that Beverley Flynn was the only person mentioned by RTE which is blatantly untrue.
Unlike the nine senior members of the bank, Ms Flynn was never brought to court. She pursued RTE (not the other way around), brought them to court and denied she ever assisted anyone in evading tax. The High Court said she was a liar, as did the Supreme Court. So, she decided to go to the High Court and call RTE a liar and you are now trying to say that the NIB should be held accountable for this? And it is their responsibility to tidy up the mess that her actions triggered? That doesn’t make sense.
If you disagree with any of this, please let me know, but back it up with facts and not conjecture.
The Crewser said,
July 3, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Bev was excluded from the Parliamentary Party on the grounds of discipline, something that other Parties might not have much regard for (Paddy Donegan etc)
The Crewser said,
July 3, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Liam, RTE deliberately put Beverley Flynn in the position where she had to go to Court to defend herself. They would have got detailed legal advice on this, most probably from the same people who advised them to accept the €1.25 million Euro. NIB as orchestrators of the scheme to evade tax are completely 100% responsible for all costs arising. No crooked scheme, no libel case.
Liam said,
July 3, 2007 at 2:18 pm
“Liam, RTE deliberately put Beverley Flynn in the position where she had to go to Court to defend herself”
Crewser, RTE said that 19 employees of a bank were assisting in tax evasion. To most people’s eyes, including Bertie Ahern’s, that’s excellent public service.
Nobody put Beverley in a position where she had to lie to court. That is the risk she took and unfortunately for her she failed.
Liam said,
July 3, 2007 at 2:22 pm
“No crooked scheme, no libel case.”
I agree completely. she shouldn’t have got herself involved in a crooked scheme.
Sarah said,
July 3, 2007 at 3:26 pm
yes, poor GG…self-destruction in progress is always painful to watch..
She was excluded on discipline when she wouldn’t vote for Pee to fess up about the 50k. She was excluded again after the Supreme Court ruled THAT SHE HAD ADVISED PEOPLE TO EVADE TAX.
someone said,
July 3, 2007 at 3:29 pm
It si the duty of the employee to indemnify the employer and the employers duty to indemnify the employee.
Now we have the classic Irish scenario of a massive dust cloud being thrown up to hide the issues.
Either someone is guilty or not. All this getting up on high horses and righteous indignation is one of the reasons I want to leave Ireland for good.
Ireland is a corrupt society that knowingly deludes itslef and prefers fantasy over reality. Instead of Mickey Mouse we get characters like Beverly Flynn.
Paul Newton said,
July 3, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Hi Sarah,
I’m sure you won’t mind me reminding you of the reasons you gave for people re voting GG in the general election.
“hmm, of course he hasn’t been elected yet so hasn’t been able to do anything! However, I can tell you two things:
1. Prior to his entry into the election he spent most of his spare time attending schools and youth sporting events. He is absolutely brilliant with children and he’d give out prizes and do practice training sessions with them. In fact when the sister was out canvassing with him at schools, Graham was spending time with the kids instead of plamassing the mothers. I thought that was nice.
2. I believe he would concentrate his efforts on helping people in disadvantages areas
3. His wife is the real political brains. Its a two for the price of one job”
In the light of recent events, and although you always knew the emperor had no clothes, i find your decision to support his nomination and then vote for him incompatible with your highhanded criticism of FF and even Beverly cheesy grin
Perhaps you might explain how it’s poor Graham and Nasty Beverly for those of us who are no so clued in?
Anna said,
July 3, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Bertie thinks that Beverley’s natural home is FF. I quite agree.
Sarah said,
July 3, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Because no one has accused Graham of breaking any law, he hasn’t sued anyone who might have made such an accusation, he hasn’t been found in violation of any law by a court (never mind a High or Supreme Court), he hasn’t been kicked out a party and readmitted even though the stated reason for his expulsion hasn’t changed and he hasn’t cost licence fee payers piles of money. Oh, and he hasn’t lied about anything, even under oath. And I doubt you’ll find Enda Kenny saying violence is perfectly acceptable and if GG had been elected he’d be given a top job.
And finally, you’ll note that while I sympathised with GG I didn’t condone his propensity to use the fist when he loses the temper. The whole point is that he is self destructing because his behaviour is unaccetable. She’s not destructing. She’s getting promoted.
andrew said,
July 3, 2007 at 8:15 pm
‘It is easy to occupy the moral high ground. what’s more difficult is to confidently occupy the moral low ground.’
Beverly Flynn? Bertie Ahern? John Waters, even?
No, it’s a quote from ‘Jerry Springer: the Opera’.
liam said,
July 3, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Ha ha Anna! Best comment so far!
The Crewser said,
July 3, 2007 at 9:41 pm
NIB were 100% responsible for the entire debacle. Repeat 100%
That does not leave any percentage for anybody else including Beverley Flynn. Responsibility rests where it belongs and that is with the Bank. The Bank’s employees do not share one whit of guilt for what happened, but its hard to get that through to people who have a political motivation for believing otherwise.
The Crewser said,
July 3, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Another bit of GOOD NEWS that Sarah missed was that Athlone now has a Sinn Fein Lord Mayor. Good to see that the larger Parties are supporting the peace process in Northern Ireland by allowing rotations involving SF.
Tom N said,
July 4, 2007 at 5:49 am
“NIB were 100% responsible for the entire debacle. Repeat 100%
That does not leave any percentage for anybody else including Beverley Flynn……”
Surely this is contempt of court? The courts disagree with you Bev! Get used to it as it is not going to change.
No employee of any organisation has a carte blanche to do as they please and then blame their employer.
liam said,
July 4, 2007 at 8:35 am
“NIB were 100% responsible for the entire debacle. Repeat 100%
Absolutely idiotic comment. Repeating it only makes it twice as idiotic.
Could you please explain to me how anyone can be 100% responsible for someone else lying under oath?
The Crewser said,
July 4, 2007 at 7:09 pm
The illegal schemes were dreamed up by NIB. They and not their employees and sales people were the culprits. Any fall out resulting resulting from the products in question was also the responsibility of the above mentioned financial institution. It would be too much to expect Liam and Tom N to accept this given their clearly stated political bias.
The Crewser said,
July 4, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Perhaps only in Meath, assaulting somebody with your fists does not constitute an offence. Poor GG.
Tom N said,
July 5, 2007 at 10:51 am
Crewser,
Playing the man not the ball there. This is not a pro-FG or anti-FF forum. It is a thread on you (still presuming that you are Beverly Cooper Flynn). You don’t have to convince myself, Lia, Sarah or any of the readers. You have to convince the courts. You failed miserably at that.
I had drafted a logical response. Your contention that the schemes themselves were illegal is incorrect. They are perfectly legal for non residents and they still exist to this day. But there is no point in arguing logic with you as it has thus far only elicited juvenile “ah feck off you fecking west brit blueshirt” style responses.
Why so angry after the courts have given their decision? We were the ones that were screwed over, not you! Now we have to fork out for your misdeeds.
The Crewser said,
July 5, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I hear what you are saying Tom N but I am afraid you are well wide of the mark as usual. You do not have any convincing to do to sho your political bias. Its shining through your writing, clearly enough. (FG Philosophical Champions etc)
I see what exactly you are tring to do but it will not wash with me.
Once again I will say it for your benefit NIB were responsible for the dodgy financial products, 100% responsible. Not any of the NIB employees or salespeople. If RTE and Charlie Bird wanted to slag off or take out somebody or something NIB should have been the target, but that would have been a little risky and a little dangerous, so they went for the easy target, a former Bank employee, now a public representative.
Fair play to the people of Mayo for being enlightened enough to return her to Dail Eireann. They will not regret it.