Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, KhunBENQ said:

And then promoted to President of the European Central Bank since 2019!

That's not quite right.

Lagarde was convicted because of negligence. Because she did not oppose to a arbitration award causing a loss of 400 mill. 

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Posted
1 hour ago, KhunBENQ said:

In Germany the establishment even cries for a ban! of the right wing party.

Latest polls show them at 24% just one percent behind the leading party.

That's almost 1/3 of the electorate? So 2/3 do not agree with the right wing?

  • Confused 5
  • Thanks 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, candide said:

Your comparisons are completely irrelevant. The offenses and the laws used were different.

 

She's been convicted according to a law (Sapin II), voted after the cases you mention,  in order to better fight corruption. According to the law, the inegibility sanction is mandatory, and not any more optional as before. The judges are not allowed to decide otherwise.

 

As she was an autocratic party leader, she was deciding and giving written instructions about how  the money was spent, who should be recruited, etc.. She did not leave it to party executives. That's why she was convicted, not as party leader but as the person who directly gave orders to fraud. 

 

Executives from a party supporting Macron have been convicted in 2024 for exactly the same offense, according to the same law.

Thank you for put it right

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Nonsense, Christine Lagarde became President of the European Central Bank on 1st November 2019; how could you possibly comment without knowing that fact (rhetorical)

 

 

Irrelevant comment. 

It's about her conviction.

  • Confused 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

 

It is worth looking at other offences of corruption in France to juxtapose with the treatment of Le Pen. The offences differ in detail, but they are broadly similar in nature — all involve misuse of public funds or negligence in public office:

 

<> Marine Le Pen: Convicted in 2025 for embezzling EU funds by using them to pay party staff in France rather than for EU parliamentary work. Result: 4-year sentence (2 suspended), €100,000 fine, 5-year ban from office 

 

<> Christine Lagarde: Found guilty in 2016 of negligence over a €400m payout to a businessman while finance minister. No fine, no ban, no sentence imposed.

 

<> Jacques Chirac: Convicted in 2011 of embezzlement and abuse of public trust — creating fake jobs while mayor of Paris. Received a 2-year suspended sentence, no political ban.

 

Proportionality …. hmmmm, arguably, Le Pen’s case involves a smaller financial scale than Lagarde’s or Chirac’s — yet she received the harshest penalty in terms of political consequences. That raises valid concerns about consistency and timing, especially with an election on the horizon; and we worry about the ominous signs of a two their justice system in the UK.

 

 

Any examples of liberals/leftwing members of this forum sullenly objecting to any of these convictions while claiming  the law is being used to suppress political opposition?

 

 

 

  • Confused 5
  • Haha 1
Posted

Different judge and jurisdiction lead to a variation of ruling. No point in spreading whataboutism. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Posted

A flame has been removed

  • Thanks 1

"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!"

Arnold Judas Rimmer of Jupiter Mining Corporation Ship Red Dwarf

Posted
3 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

That's not quite right.

Lagarde was convicted because of negligence. Because she did not oppose to an arbitration award causing a loss of 400 mill. 


Is it not what Eloquent Pilgrim wrote? Negligence…

  • Confused 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Nid_Noi said:


Is it not what Eloquent Pilgrim wrote? Negligence…

Only partly unfortunately.

Therefore I started "not quite right" Do you understand?

  • Confused 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Nid_Noi said:


What I understand is that you have a poor knowledge of the Adidas-Tapie-Credit Lyonnais affair in which Christine Lagarde was saved by the establishment. Any other person in her place would have been sentenced to jail time.

 Because she was the IMF official and former Minister of Finances her case was brought to the Cour de Justice de la Republique and not to a criminal court. She ordered the arbitration panel to solve the case and Tapie won the settlement against the state through its state owned bank the Credit Lyonnais US$527millions. 
Among these people “negligence” replaces “ dishonesty”.Then the decision of the panel was overturned because one of the panelists had ties with Tapie. How convenient for the court of appeal to overturn the initial decision.

Lagarde knew Mr. Estoup the arbitrator but did not find any reason to dismiss him.

Lagarde is rotten to the core.

If you start this issue you should finish it to the end.

What you write is only the half of the case.

Go back and read about this case.

Can you?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Posted
17 minutes ago, Nid_Noi said:


What I understand is that you have a poor knowledge of the Adidas-Tapie-Credit Lyonnais affair in which Christine Lagarde was saved by the establishment. Any other person in her place would have been sentenced to jail time.

 Because she was the IMF official and former Minister of Finances her case was brought to the Cour de Justice de la Republique and not to a criminal court. She ordered the arbitration panel to solve the case and Tapie won the settlement against the state through its state owned bank the Credit Lyonnais US$527millions. 
Among these people “negligence” replaces “ dishonesty”.Then the decision of the panel was overturned because one of the panelists had ties with Tapie. How convenient for the court of appeal to overturn the initial decision.

Lagarde knew Mr. Estoup the arbitrator but did not find any reason to dismiss him.

Lagarde is rotten to the core.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Lagarde

That's the story.

Good day

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted

An off topic post dragging UK into it has been removed

 

Also now a troll / flame post

  • Thanks 1

"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!"

Arnold Judas Rimmer of Jupiter Mining Corporation Ship Red Dwarf

Posted
11 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Not sure there are too many opponents of the verdict; it was arrived at in a French court of law, the issue that some, like myself have, is the proportionality, or otherwise, of the sentencing.

 

Only every support MlP of which there are a vast amount, as well as more than a few on the opposing sides who see this as undemocratic. To say "there aren't too many opponents of the verdict" is lefty wishful thinking IMO.

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




  • Topics

  • Popular Contributors

  • Latest posts...

    1. 0

      Rare Medical Case: Woman Discovers Heartworm Parasite Emerging from Under Her Eye

    2. 2

      Some give up, exhausted.

    3. 2

      Chinese Nationals Flee Accident Scene After Crashing Mercedes in Chonburi

    4. 18

      Thailand Live Friday 4 April 2025

    5. 3

      Nine-Year-Old Child Killed by Explosive Device in Phichit Province

    6. 18

      Thailand Live Friday 4 April 2025

  • Popular in The Pub

×
×
  • Create New...