Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous   1, 2, 3
Author Message
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:59 am
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Sep 2007
Posts
7177
Location
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Duty rates are set centrally by the EU.
The tax (duty) is there to protect European countries' business - they grow a lot of garlic in Spain, but if they can only produce and sell it for (let's say) 10c per bulb, yet China can produce it for 3c a bulb, then importers would just buy the Chinese garlic & never buy the Spanish garlic. They cannot prevent the Chinese from selling it at 3c, and they cannot prevent you from buying it at 3c, but they can discourage you from buying it by putting huge rates of Duty on it to try to support & protect local (European) business.
On the one hand it may seem unfair that this isn't completely "free trade" but if it wasn't for measures like this Ireland would probably have little or no export market.

I know from my own experience that while the application of duty classifications is done in a highly detailed & specific manner, sometimes they are open to interpretation, and one European country may accept a particular interpretation and another country may not, leading to unfair advantages for one EU country over another. For all we know, perhaps the Chinese garlic is being improperly imported by everyone all over Europe, and this particular importer may be the only one to be caught/prosecuted. I've no idea if that is the case, I'm just saying that it is possible.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:07 am
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Apr 2008
Posts
1016
Location
wicklow
waggs wrote:
motherhen wrote:
I think its ridiculous that he got 6 years when u see the likes of Wayne O'Donoghue getting 4 yrs for murdering a child and hiding his body, thats just the one case that popped into my head when I read it, I'm not doubting that he's done wrong and he should be punished but ffs get some sort of flipping balance, the whole system is a joke.


Wayne O'Donoghue was not convicted of murder. He was convicted of manslaughter. I'm not jumping to his defence - just stating a fact.


Yeah ur right, sorry, even still though I dont think he got a sentence that matched his crime as I dont in this case.

_________________
MOTHERHEN

Image
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:15 am
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Oct 2006
Posts
9577
Location
just moved west of the shannon
I have no real sympathy for him - he didn't forget to pay tax or make a mistake - he engaged in activites to deliberately defraud the state.

On the sentence - I think six years is fine - it sends a fairly strong message about how serious stealing from the state is. On the inequity - I would rather see focus on increasing the sentences for violent crimes than reducing this one.


Last edited by novbaby31 on Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:37 am
Offline

Joined
Jul 2004
Posts
7940
Location
Dublin
novbaby31 wrote:
I have no real sympathy for him - he didn't forget to pay tax or make a mistake - he engaged in activiters to deliberately defraud the state.

On the sentance - I think six years is fine - it sends a fairly strong message about how serious stealing from the state is. On the inequity - I would rather see focus on increasing the sentances for violent crimes than reducing this one.

I agree. He systematically, deliberately, and consciously set out to defraud the State (i.e. you and me, the taxpayers) and continued to do so over many years, for purely selfish profit motives.

It was not up to him nor any other individual to decide for themselves that a particular tax or duty was "ridiculous" or unjustified and to unilaterally decide to falsify documentation to avoid paying it. I do feel the sentence could be seen as heavy, but it is two sentences for what were four sample charges. If he had been tried for all the potential charges over the many years he was doing this, and got a small sentence for each, he'd probably be in jail a lot longer.

The uproar when someone admits to or is suspected of making false social welfare claims, which would come to far, far less than this man stole from the State, is in stark contrast to the sentiment here. Consider how little attention this thread got, concerning a man who defrauded the State of less than a sixth of what Paul Begley managed and who was jailed for over 12 years for his trouble.

I do think as a society we need to consider whether we wish to reduce or even eliminate custodial sentences for non-violent crimes. But at present, we have not done so, and I don't think that deciding that nice, respectable, white-collar criminals who have cash can be exempt from prison sentences, whilst those who cannot or do not tick those boxes will be sent to jail, is how to deal with that. It smacks of one law for the rich and one for the poor (and I accept that in many ways this already exists; I am saying that exacerbating it is not the way to go).

And the argument that he shouldn't be jailed because others have not yet been brought to justice is like saying no-one who is on trial for assault should be sentenced until all murder cases for that year have been brought to trial, because they're more serious and if a murderer hasn't yet gone to prison why should someone who only beat someone else up? One has nothing to do with the other.

My children spend a lot of time trying to persuade me that bad behaviour on the part of one of them justifies further bad behaviour from another. ("But she jumped on the couch/threw toys around/pushed me/screamed/didn't do her homework yesterday!") I don't accept it as an excuse from them and I certainly don't accept it as an excuse from grown adults.

_________________
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:44 am
Offline

Joined
Jan 2005
Posts
12173
Location
Dublin
novbaby31 wrote:
I have no real sympathy for him - he didn't forget to pay tax or make a mistake - he engaged in activiters to deliberately defraud the state.

On the sentance - I think six years is fine - it sends a fairly strong message about how serious stealing from the state is. On the inequity - I would rather see focus on increasing the sentances for violent crimes than reducing this one.



The more I've been thinking about it, the more I agree with the above. But I have such a huge problem with the inequity part and would really really really love to see the whole system overhauled so people pay for their crimes and you don't get the situation where you can run a pedestrian walking on a footpath over while over the limit and walk away with a suspended licence and sentence and other similar IMO stupid judicial outcomes. Get tough with everyone over serious crimes, there should be little lee way for Judges to set soft sentences.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:46 am
Offline

Joined
Jan 2005
Posts
12173
Location
Dublin
Oh and Chinese garlic sucks in comparison to your regular European variety.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:24 am
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Aug 2004
Posts
27676
Ireland is generally far to soft on white collar crime.

This was serious, longterm tax evasion.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:11 pm
Offline

Joined
Jan 2005
Posts
12173
Location
Dublin
LuckyMum wrote:
denzo wrote:
Oh and Chinese garlic sucks in comparison to your regular European variety.


Until I read this thread I never considered checking where my garlic came from. I will now :D


It's the one thing Tesco do well :D Their organic garlic is so much superior to the stuff you get in Aldi or Lidl. Much stronger and more flavourful.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:30 pm
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Dec 2010
Posts
2306
Mrs Mom wrote:
A woman got 6 years jail today for killing an elderly man with her car by pinning him to the wall of a house in a drunken fury.
2 years suspended.
It just shows what a massive problem there is with sentencing here when you compare it with 6 years for tax evasion.


I thought of this thread when I heard her sentence on the news earlier.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:43 pm
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Apr 2009
Posts
3708
My point purely relates to the futility of such a long prison sentence in a case like this. The taxpayer will foot the bill for his prison stay and we will be several hundred thousand euros poorer.

What he did was absolutely wrong, but the likes of Quinn and Fitzpatrick have shown utter contempt for the law and for Irish people and therefore I would not put them in the same category as someone who had agreed a programme of repaying his debt in full plus all penalties.

I didn't even see the case of the social welfare fraudster, so wasn't aware of the outrage surrounding that case.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:50 pm
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Apr 2009
Posts
3708
Bad behaviour from one person or people does not justify other bad behaviour but at the same time, punishments need to be appropriate.

If a first child pushed another child in the playground and the second child punched and kicked another child in the playground, you would punish both but you would expect the punishment for the second offence to be greater. That is moral reasoning. Hence, people are disturbed at this man getting a longer sentence than a rapist or a paedophile (in some cases).


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:28 pm
Offline
User avatar

Joined
May 2006
Posts
6610
Location
Leinster
Mrs Mom wrote:

:crazy:
I see no point in the garlic guy going to jail for years as he has made recompense.
These two sentences handed down just today for major crimes against persons get the same sentence. It is just crazy!!!


But that is akin to him buying his way out of a long jail sentence simply because his business has plenty money to pay back all they stole. It's not coming out of his pocket.... his company is paying it all back.
They are a very profitable business - it's not as if this 1.6m, over the course of the 4 years we know about, was going to make or break them. It was greed and attempt to take competitive advantage over others in their line of work, as well as cheating the ordinary tax payer in the process.
And before anyone thinks I think the sentences handed down today are acceptable I don't - this is more reflection on their leniency than anything else.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:09 am
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Jul 2004
Posts
37254
Location
In my head, mostly...
BekkyD wrote:
Duty rates are set centrally by the EU.
The tax (duty) is there to protect European countries' business - they grow a lot of garlic in Spain, but if they can only produce and sell it for (let's say) 10c per bulb, yet China can produce it for 3c a bulb, then importers would just buy the Chinese garlic & never buy the Spanish garlic. They cannot prevent the Chinese from selling it at 3c, and they cannot prevent you from buying it at 3c, but they can discourage you from buying it by putting huge rates of Duty on it to try to support & protect local (European) business.
On the one hand it may seem unfair that this isn't completely "free trade" but if it wasn't for measures like this Ireland would probably have little or no export market.

I know from my own experience that while the application of duty classifications is done in a highly detailed & specific manner, sometimes they are open to interpretation, and one European country may accept a particular interpretation and another country may not, leading to unfair advantages for one EU country over another. For all we know, perhaps the Chinese garlic is being improperly imported by everyone all over Europe, and this particular importer may be the only one to be caught/prosecuted. I've no idea if that is the case, I'm just saying that it is possible.


Thanks for the explanation.

I did think of this case today in relation to other sentences that were in the news.

I still think the judgement/sentencing was harsh in this particular case.

IM x


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:49 am
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Apr 2009
Posts
3708
Director of Penal Reform Trust was just on the radio and said that prison should be the last resort and only appropriate when all other avenues have been exhausted, i.e. Fines, community service etc. I think in this case, they weren't.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:57 pm
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Apr 2008
Posts
1016
Location
wicklow
zenmammy wrote:
Director of Penal Reform Trust was just on the radio and said that prison should be the last resort and only appropriate when all other avenues have been exhausted, i.e. Fines, community service etc. I think in this case, they weren't.


+1

_________________
MOTHERHEN

Image
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:18 pm
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Jan 2008
Posts
17149
Location
Dublin
Thank God that common sense has prevailed with this case. Will be interesting to see what the new sentence will be. http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0122/363908 ... lic-court/

Do Judges ever get a wrap on the knuckles for choosing to overlook vital elements to a case? :tellme:


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:06 pm
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Jul 2004
Posts
5680
Deise wrote:
Thank God that common sense has prevailed with this case. Will be interesting to see what the new sentence will be. http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0122/363908 ... lic-court/

Agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:51 pm
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Jul 2004
Posts
50110
Location
Biddypatland
He has still served almost 11 months though which is a pity. Espically when you see the farce of a case yesterday.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:03 pm
Offline

Joined
Jun 2009
Posts
1288
Location
In my own little World
I strongly agree , this man was paying back his crime and held his hands up, unlike many other who are still walking free. I cannot understand the system in this country ?? Feeling for the family today, must be hard to see him back in prison till February .

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 3  [ 59 posts ] Go to page Previous   1, 2, 3
Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to :