Talk:Guinness share-trading fraud

Just read through this article on a link-clicking binge, and couldn't help but notice an an apparently irrelevant line about the defendants being Jewish, from which no conclusions were drawn - it seems the reader is left to fill in the blanks that it was an evil money-grabbing Jewish conspiracy. Can someone fill in the significance of this observation, or otherwise remove it? Was the intention to re-enforce anti-semitic stereotypes, or to point out that racists seized on this event to propagate their hatred, or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:5C1E:300:DCE3:8B64:E7DC:818A (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
is this a reptbl ref 4 p. worsthorne's comments? Jamaissur

From a speech given by David Irving:

Peregrine Worsthorne, that great editor of the Sunday Telegraph, made so bold, a year or two ago now, as to draw attention to the fact that every single defendant in the Guinness Shares Scandal was of a certain, uh, type. (Laughter) I am not going to go into more detail than that. He mentioned in an editorial in the Sunday Telegraph that every single defendant was of a particular religion. This of course is entirely immaterial to us. We don't mind what religion people are. It makes no difference if Gerald Ronson and Ernest Saunders and the rest of them are not really called that at all; that "Tiny" Rowland's real name is something completely different is a matter of complete indifference to me. But what does worry me is that apart from the Sunday Telegraph the English press for some reason found it necessary not to mention this — that this was an obvious unifying factor which for some reason or other had not to be mentioned.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/speeches/DestinySpeech1990.html

Can we have the Telegraph ref? Sorry but I don't consider Irving to be a non-POV source. Tho' the decision not to prosecute the Rothschilds suggests that the anti-semitic aspect was a bit of a red herring from the start.86.42.193.51 01:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Second case
The "second case" seems to be the "Secondary trial", mentioned later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenmamba123123 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Guinness one?
Text mention "Guinness One" occasionally without an explanation. A typo? Викидим (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)