Noel Dempsey: Hypocrite!

Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
The Mail on Sunday has a good article today (which I thought deserved a wider audience, hur-hur..) by Michael O'Farrell and Niamh Walsh which reveals something done by Dempsey in 2002 that makes his Ard Fheis 'Cromwell' speech look even more vomit-makingly ridiculous than previously thought. The Building Society Act of 1989 laid down that all loans to building society directors and their families mst, for transparency and accountability, be publicly listed in a file submiited to the Central Bank every year. Dempsey changed this in 2002 by adding a paragraph to an unrelated Act, the Housing (miscellaneous) Act 2002 allowing for all loans to famly members to be kept secret as well as all loans secured against a director's home. The Mail says that there was no debate on this provision to be found anywhere, because it is added on to an Act that seems to have nothing to do with the issue on the face of it (the main Dail discussion on the Act was on the provisions allowing forcible evictions from illegal halting sites), while it was never publicly announced in a press release. When asked by the Mail, the Government refused to explain why this was done in such a way, nor whether it had been as a response to lobbying.

As a result of the change two mortgages loaned to Michael 'Fingers' Fingleton's wife and son in 2003 were kept secret, and were only found by the Mail after a trawl. Fingleton's wife received another loan on January 29th this year. There are now apparently several loans made from Nationwide against Fingleton's own home. The provisions of the 2002 law change by Dempsey have been effectively reversed by the Regulator this week.

I don't have a cyber-linkemyjig for the Mail so you'll have to take my word for it. But Dempsey, if he had any shame, would obey the words of the Oliver Cromwell when he said "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
 


He3

Moderator
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
17,077
Good journalism.

Why did Dempsey do this for the likes of Fingleton?

Edit: late thought - who inspired the story?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
I thought it was a very good story, that's why I brought it here. The Mail often produces 'spectaculars' that seem to die a death because they're in the Mail. The Mail's stories on Ahern sank FF election campaign strategy in 2007, but it was a very slow one to be picked up, it was ages before RTE properly examined it. This one also seems a humdinger, a complete exposure of the humbug and shameless hypocrisy of Dempsey's allegedly 'barnstorming'* (*copyright RTE) Conference speech, a speech more transparent and cringeworthy that it makes Michael Portillo's famous 'S.A.S.' speech look like the Gettysburg Address....
 

He3

Moderator
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
17,077
Yes this one has legs.

How many Building Societies were left in the market in 2002?

The Nationwide and the EBS - any others?
 

stanley

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
9,682
Good journalism.

Why did Dempsey do this for the likes of Fingleton?

There will be a lot more than Fingers and Bertie hiding behind this one, presuming Fingers missus is roughly same age as him, how could they be lending her money (25/30 yr mortgage at 65/70), always thought ability to repay was first criteria, but hold on it's Irl and Finger's private BS, sooner they blow pandora's box at INBS, the better.

Great story by the Mail they really should stick on an Irish section online like the Times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: He3

mmrebel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
753
id love to see something come of this , is this solid evidence of a FF minister do favours for big business the oppistion should pick this up ram it down FF's throat
 
Last edited:

He3

Moderator
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
17,077
Fianna Fáil must have an explanation for this surely.
 

Swingingdoor

Active member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
134
The Greens must ask questions also
 
  • Like
Reactions: He3

adrem

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
924
Is there really anything in this? Were these changes not implemented simply to bring the building society legislation in line with the central bank regulations on ordinary banks?

Did the opposition question these changes at the time?
 

He3

Moderator
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
17,077
Pig just hit the ground.
 

Swingingdoor

Active member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
134
The opposition are at nothing.
Attentions, must now be focused on the weakest link.
You know what they say about how to break chains.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
Is there really anything in this? Were these changes not implemented simply to bring the building society legislation in line with the central bank regulations on ordinary banks?

Did the opposition question these changes at the time?
It seems to have been hidden in a Housing Act, it wasn't raised in the Dail, it wasn't advertised by press release, there was no discussion apparently (the main discussion of the Act being a controversy over the forced removal of Travellers from illegal halting sites). I'd also suggest that it wouldn't have necessarily have been picked up on because nobody was awake to the possibility that these fellows were capable of such things. As to bringing the regulations into line with ordinary banking regulations, have you any source for that? I don't know was that reasoning put forward by anyone, but if it was then why was the 1989 Building Society legislation introduced at all differently? And why was Fingleton quick off the mark to use it, and to use his new entitlement not to publicly declare it? And why stick it on the end of a Housing Act?
 

Odyessus

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,890
It seems to have been hidden in a Housing Act, it wasn't raised in the Dail, it wasn't advertised by press release, there was no discussion apparently (the main discussion of the Act being a controversy over the forced removal of Travellers from illegal halting sites). I'd also suggest that it wouldn't have necessarily have been picked up on because nobody was awake to the possibility that these fellows were capable of such things. As to bringing the regulations into line with ordinary banking regulations, have you any source for that? I don't know was that reasoning put forward by anyone, but if it was then why was the 1989 Building Society legislation introduced at all differently? And why was Fingleton quick off the mark to use it, and to use his new entitlement not to publicly declare it? And why stick it on the end of a Housing Act?

But what do you mean "he added a paragraph to the unrelated Housing Act?" Do you mean he introduced an amendment when the bill was before the House? If so, what was the attitude of the opposition? If not, what do you mean by "added a paragraph to the Act?"
 

conservative green

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
1,261
Yes this one has legs.

How many Building Societies were left in the market in 2002?

The Nationwide and the EBS - any others?

There were no others. ICS 'Building Society' is a subsidiary of BOI and has been for years.

As for Fingleton, he is an odd kettle of fish.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top