Occupy Galway Group (mod note added)

antoobrien

SeamusFX wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ, not everyone was greedy. Some like myself just needed a place to live. I rented for years and had many problems and I reached a point in my life and that of my family that I had to buy. I wasn't greedy and I had no plans on trying to make a few bob, just looking for a house! I didn't buy something I "couldn't afford", although I paid too much for it.

You can beg to differ but by "normal" standards in this country my statement is true, everyone was greedy. Normal for Ireland is before 1998, and probably earlier because things were getting out of hand even at that stage. I remember sitting with friends discussing he price of a 3 bed terraced house in 2002 saying it was way too much wondering when it would stop. I count myself as fortunate that I'm still not in a position to buy or I might have given into the pressure put onto people to buy.

You say you weren't greedy - I beg to differ. You wanted, you took and by your own admission you paid too much. Sounds greedy to me.

Simarillion

I think these occupy the streets protesters should get off their arses and get a job!
Must be nice to have enough free time to sit around the street all day. I'd love to go off camping somewhere.
Meanwhile the rest of us are paying taxes to cover the social welfare payments that fund their "social awareness".

Irishgoatman

Simarillion wrote: »

I think these occupy the streets protesters should get off their arses and get a job!
Must be nice to have enough free time to sit around the street all day. I'd love to go off camping somewhere.
Meanwhile the rest of us are paying taxes to cover the social welfare payments that fund their "social awareness".

It's so good to know that you've found the time to go and meet them all and discuss their personal situations.

Just out of interest, where would you suggest that anyone who is unemployed should go to get a job? Australia or Canada perhaps?
I haven't heard of many going here in Ireland recently.

mikom

Simarillion wrote: »

Must be nice to have enough free time to sit around the street all day. I'd love to go off camping somewhere.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1484
No charge.

SeamusFX

antoobrien wrote: »

You say you weren't greedy - I beg to differ. You wanted, you took and by your own admission you paid too much. Sounds greedy to me.

My apologies, I didn't realise I was arguing with school children! That's the only explanation! So I was desperate, needed a place to live, I didn't want to buy, but after renting for so long and with so many problems I had to buy. Unless you are in my HEAD you don't know! Yes, i knew I paid way too much and after predicting a crash for so long i knew it was going to come eventually. After a while it dragged on for so long I revised my time frame and I did under estimate when it would come and by how much it would fall. But the point is, I wasn't speculating, I needed a place to live and I knew there was good chance I would never make a profit if I sold it and I was looking for a profit, just a place to live. So how the Flip is that GREED!!! If it was just the high mortgage alone I wouldn't mind to much, since I have no plans on selling and I couldn't if I wanted it, but what burns me is everything else and me paying more for those that did gamble, I didn't gamble i just bought a very small and basic house and while I'm still paying, many who bought a lot more than me aren't paying!

I'm amazed at all here who were such geniuses to resist buying during the boom, funny, everyone I know over 30 owns a house, I was the last of my family friends and peers to buy a house. But see I shouldn't argue with children, that's the only explanation why all these people are bragging about how they didn't buy during the boom, probably because you were all still in school during the boom.

Irishgoatman

mikom wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1484
No charge.

Nice one.
What's the betting he doesn't go?:)

inisboffin

Simarillion wrote: »

I I'd love to go off camping somewhere.
.

In *this* weather? In the middle of a City? On concrete?

Bit odd of a choice for yer holliers, no?

cheesemaker

Simarillion wrote: »

I think these occupy the streets protesters should get off their arses and get a job!
Must be nice to have enough free time to sit around the street all day. I'd love to go off camping somewhere.
Meanwhile the rest of us are paying taxes to cover the social welfare payments that fund their "social awareness".

yeah, the Sunday Independent called, said they want their argument back

Greaney

IF my young fella was in Eyre squareprotesting, I'd be proud. I'd be delighted that he was pro-active and gave a damn.

IF, on the other hand, he thought blowing my hard earned money acting the maggot during rag week...

I might bring them down a few sandwiches....

antoobrien

SeamusFX wrote: »

My apologies, I didn't realise I was arguing with school children!

one could say the same thing about the rest of your argument.

SeamusFX wrote: »

That's the only explanation! So I was desperate, needed a place to live, I didn't want to buy, but after renting for so long and with so many problems I had to buy. Unless you are in my HEAD you don't know!

You have no right to complain then. You brought into the shared fallacy that ownership is better than renting. By the way I was renting one of those over priced properties but then I'm not denying that I'm part of the problem.

SeamusFX wrote: »

But the point is, I wasn't speculating, I needed a place to live and I knew there was good chance I would never make a profit if I sold it and I was looking for a profit, just a place to live.

I couldn't if I wanted it, but what burns me is everything else and me paying more for those that did gamble, I didn't gamble i just bought a very small and basic house and while I'm still paying, many who bought a lot more than me aren't paying!

Delusional. You were speculating/gambling on:
(a) the premise that the price wouldn't go down too much
(b) the construction supported employment bubble would go on
Both of these helped to support high prices and high wages.

SeamusFX wrote: »

I'm amazed at all here who were such geniuses to resist buying during the boom, funny, everyone I know over 30 owns a house, I was the last of my family friends and peers to buy a house.

At the risk of getting an infraction what kind of twit are you anyways? I'm the only one out so I have to buy. It's idiotic thinking like that which lead to and then supported the property boom. Just stop complaining and take your punishment - you deserve it.

SeamusFX wrote: »

But see I shouldn't argue with children, that's the only explanation why all these people are bragging about how they didn't buy during the boom, probably because you were all still in school during the boom.

By the way, I'm over 30 and I don't own a house. Why - two reasons:
I couldn't afford it during the boom, so I rented the space I need instead.
I'm not stupid enough to pay >250k for a 3 bed semi-d, or one bed apartment any where in this country like many people have been willing to do for the past 10 years (Especially not the pyrite infested ones they were building in the past 5-10 years).

Somebody tried to convince me 5 years ago that my brother and I should buy a house together "to get on the ladder". Bloody glad I laughed that idiot out the door. 5 years on he's struggling with his mortgage repayments and I'm paying proportionally less on my rent than I was then.

In the meantime I'm biding my time, because I think the market won't bottom for another year or two. When it does bottom out I intent to have enough savings for a deposit.

Greaney

Steady on Seamus!! Although I agree with a lot of what your saying, I wouldn't be so quick to jump up and down on another persons bad luck, and yes, a lot of what you're talking about is luck.

Myself and my husband bought after the crash (recently), it was luck that we got together, married, and were in a position to pool our resources and do this. It's luck that we're both still working, it's luck that we could pull the money together because the banks refused us a morgage (we were savers, freelance, and had some generous friends and family who trust us with personal loans). And It'll be luck if I have this terrific man by my side for the next thirty or so years.

My Mum downsized near the height of the boom and by sheer luck, ended up with a sizable nest egg (some of which went to help us when we couldn't get our morgage). She didn't end up with this because she was clever, shrewd, a buisness woman or had a crystal ball, she was just of the generation who bought property when it was low and came to pensionable age when it was high, and sold it! She wasn't greedy (others told her she could have squeezed a few more grand out of it but she didn't).

I've been given some bad advice by bankers (my own family!) before. I had suspected it was bad advice and went with my gut. I'm not always right, but that time I was. I imagine we've learnt our lessons good and well on this one (for this generation anyway). Nuff said, folk are paying a high price and we're letting the powers that be know how we feel about it.

KetchupKid

I'm confused, even if I was lucky enough to have bought loads of property before the boom and sold at the peak, I still wouldn't begrudge people who are protesting, because a lot of bad decisions were made, the trend of us paying more for everything and losing many rights and privileges is apparent and a lot of people are hurting. I just can't understand why anyone would object to anyone protesting against an obvious wrong.

snubbleste

Greaney wrote: »

IF my young fella was in Eyre squareprotesting, I'd be proud. I'd be delighted that he was pro-active and gave a damn.
IF, on the other hand, he thought blowing my hard earned money acting the maggot during rag week...
I might bring them down a few sandwiches....

Cucumber with a hint of mayo cut in triangles with crusts removed.

Fair play to them, at least they are highlighting the zero accountability in this country and the placement of corporate interests over societal interests.

biko

Ok thread re-opened.
Please make sure to discuss in a civil manner. Insults, agitators and trolls will be banned.
Also try to keep this to the Galway side of things.
There are threads in Politics and Irish Economy etc for those who wish to discuss in broader strokes.

Mrs OBumble

At about 7pm, they were up to 9 small tents and one big one. And a couple of large signs saying "alcohol free zone".

mikom

JustMary wrote: »

At about 7pm, they were up to 9 small tents and one big one. .

Sounds a little camp.

biko

In this cold they could use a little hot whiskey.

Irishgoatman

My daughter told me at the weekend that it was alcohol free when I suggested a couple of hot ones to keep the cold out.

I knew there was another reason why I haven't joined her!:)

(and just before someone suggests it again, it is also drug free.)

schween

antoobrien wrote: »

By the way, I'm over 30 and I don't own a house. Why - two reasons:
I couldn't afford it during the boom, so I rented the space I need instead.
I'm not stupid enough to pay >250k for a 3 bed semi-d, or one bed apartment any where in this country like many people have been willing to do for the past 10 years (Especially not the pyrite infested ones they were building in the past 5-10 years).

I don't know many people who have bought a house in the past 3 years :P

JONJO THE MISER

JustMary wrote: »

At about 7pm, they were up to 9 small tents and one big one. And a couple of large signs saying "alcohol free zone".

Who the hell are they to say that it is a alcohol free zone, the square is public property not there private property.
If i wanted to i can go down there and drink cans all i want, who the bloody hell do they think they are.
Time the cops turf them outta the place.

JohnFalstaff

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Who the hell are they to say that it is a alcohol free zone, the square is public property not there private property.
If i wanted to i can go down there and drink cans all i want, who the bloody hell do they think they are.
Time the cops turf them outta the place.

I think you're missing the point. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't stop you from drinking cans in the Square.

JONJO THE MISER

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't stop you from drinking cans in the Square.

Well they have no right whatsoever to stop me drinking there if i wanted to, if i decided to set up a tent i could drink all the cans i wanted to.
This is typical of left wing radicals, any time these people have ever gotten power they were worse than any other group that they wanted to overthrow.

FlashD

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

If i wanted to i can go down there and drink cans all i want, who the bloody hell do they think they are.

You are correct, the square is public property but as far as i'm aware the law says you can't drink alcohol openly in public.

So, you can go down to the square and drink all the cans you want but you are breaking the law and could be arrested.

Regards

heading into town on sat. Can't wait to discuss the current economic situation with these tent twits and poke a load of holes in their loopy logic

thesandeman

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Who the hell are they to say that it is a alcohol free zone, the square is public property not there private property.
If i wanted to i can go down there and drink cans all i want, who the bloody hell do they think they are.
Time the cops turf them outta the place.

You better check the bylaws JJ. Typical blow-in :-P

Irishgoatman

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Well they have no right whatsoever to stop me drinking there if i wanted to, if i decided to set up a tent i could drink all the cans i wanted to.
This is typical of left wing radicals, any time these people have ever gotten power they were worse than any other group that they wanted to overthrow.

Oh dear, I'll try not to use big words.
It is just their camp and the people who have joined the protest who are alcohol free whilst they are there. Not the square.
You can do what you like within the law.

Mrs OBumble

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Oh dear, I'll try not to use big words.
It is just their camp and the people who have joined the protest who are alcohol free whilst they are there. Not the square.
You can do what you like within the law.

I didn't take a picture, but am 99.99999% sure the sign said "alcohol free zone", not "alcohol free people only".

I'm not sure that the campers have any legal right to control the behaviour of people in any particular corner of the square.

I'm also pretty sure there are signs up in the square prohibiting overnight camping.

Wompa1

JustMary wrote: »

I didn't take a picture, but am 99.99999% sure the sign said "alcohol free zone", not "alcohol free people only".

I'm not sure that the campers have any legal right to control the behaviour of people in any particular corner of the square.

I'm also pretty sure there are signs up in the square prohibiting overnight camping.

Maybe they could be convinced to keep a look out at night while they are there, I hear some guy got attacked there!

Chicken1

Get them out of there NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! shower of wasters

Irishgoatman

JustMary wrote: »

I didn't take a picture, but am 99.99999% sure the sign said "alcohol free zone", not "alcohol free people only".

I'm not sure that the campers have any legal right to control the behaviour of people in any particular corner of the square.

I'm also pretty sure there are signs up in the square prohibiting overnight camping.

Perhaps they could have worded the sign better.
As I said in an earlier posting, they have set rules for themselves, one of these is keeping the camp alcohol free. Other people can do as they wish, no-one is trying to stop them.
As far as camping is concerned, and I haven't been there, I would assume that any sign would be posted on the grass.
As they are, I believe, camping on the concrete this could be a moot point. Something for legal minds to work out.