Forced eviction stopped by protestors, zero coverage in media?!!

Celly Smunt

curlzy wrote: »

Perfect example of what I spoke about in my first post. Above is the typical Me Feiner Irish attitude.

No,it's called being a responsible adult and not relying on society to pick you up.People who don't pay their mortgage are just as bad as the banks.

Pandora2

Oop's sorry...did not mean to get in between a fellow Boarder & a Mod....time delay in Louth:o:o

Just the similarity of thought resonated with me...no offence intended:o:o

curlzy

curlzy wrote: »

In fairness, the thread is about media coverage, or lack thereof, however, this being After Hours I felt it acceptable to give forth my view on why we're in the state we're in as it's somewhat related to the discussion at hand. That ok?:rolleyes: (Guess what my favourtie emoticon of the day is, bet you can't!)

humanji wrote: »

You had a rant against the Irish that was barely related to the topic and got called on it. There's no point getting shirty and insulting people.

Your post makes no sense. What is it with AH's today?

subway

TheZohan wrote: »

But you saying doesn't actually mean it's true.

From reading the thread over in politics.ie it seems that they sold some property to pay for their debt and only a small amount of debt remained, the bank was unwilling to restructure the debt in any way.

Why do you trust p.ie more than me?
I'll read the p.ie thread for your sake, but why not share the "facts" with the boards.ie readers?

Chucky the tree

curlzy wrote: »

Perfect example of what I spoke about in my first post. Above is the typical Me Feiner Irish attitude.

Actually yours is. "oh someone else can pay for my mortgage" "oh someone else can pay for my children" "Oh someone else can pay for daughters communion dress".

Peetrik

pmcmahon wrote: »

Laws however are the foundation of the state and mustn't be broken.

Couldn't disagree more with this. Its too easy to use the legality of an action to justify unethical or immoral behaviour. Without going into the more obvious ww2 examples or 'stealing food to feed starving family' stories.


[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]"The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws." ~Tacitus[/FONT]

The Aussie

Have anymore facts come to light yet,. Was it,

A. someone who could not afford much and putting food on the table before paying the bill.

B. Some fool like a bloke i worked with who was self employed as a "Builder" brags that he owes over 1.2 Million, ignores phone calls from everyone who he owes money to, is out for Dinner and Drinks once a week, pub at least another time during the week and always able to afford cigarets and drive around in a 2008 Land Cruiser saying where is my debt forgiveness.

If it is a case that these people fall under category A. I have genuine pity for them, because these people would generally did not see any of the Boom Time "Money" but saw the price of everything rise.

If they fall under category B. i have not one ounce of sympathy, they can drive a 96 Vauxhall and eat beans on toast for all i care.

curlzy

Pandora2 wrote: »

Oop's sorry...did not mean to get in between a fellow Boarder & a Mod....time delay in Louth:o:o

Just the similarity of thought resonated with me...no offence intended:o:o

You are allowed to disagree with a Mod, don't worry! It's just if you break the charter you're in trouble and they'll mail you and explain why.

subway

TheZohan wrote: »

But you saying doesn't actually mean it's true.

From reading the thread over in politics.ie it seems that they sold some property to pay for their debt and only a small amount of debt remained, the bank was unwilling to restructure the debt in any way.

So nothing on pie other than a few hearsay facts.
None of which make any sense. The bank only get what they are owed. Do you understand that? If the land is so valuable the owner will be quids in after the sale. But it isn't, so they won't. It's not magic.

And in relation to my post, for the Gardai to be be on hand and a mob waiting, they had plenty of notice. Work it out...

curlzy

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Actually yours is. "oh someone else can pay for my mortgage" "oh someone else can pay for my children" "Oh someone else can pay for daughters communion dress".

Wow, just wow, too much to explain. Yep, you're going on the ignore list, your post is just too stupid to have your opinions on my computer screen.

Namlub

curlzy wrote: »

Wow, just wow, too much to explain. Yep, you're going on the ignore list, your post is just too stupid to have your opinions on my computer screen.

It's the internet, no-one cares.

token101

curlzy wrote: »

Wow, just wow, too much to explain. Yep, you're going on the ignore list, your post is just too stupid to have your opinions on my computer screen.

Total arrogance

curlzy

Namlub wrote: »

It's the internet, no-one cares.

Couldn't agree more, it's beyond not important.

I am pie

curlzy wrote: »

Wow, just wow, too much to explain. Yep, you're going on the ignore list, your post is just too stupid to have your opinions on my computer screen.

Wow indeed. Popcorn time.

ejmaztec

curlzy wrote: »

OP, are you really surprised? Here's something that's really only dawned on me lately. Irish people hate Irish people. We have ZERO unity. I think it could come from a massive inferiority complex, maybe brought about by the whole 800 of oppression but that's just guesswork on my part. But either way from what I've seen Irish people won't stand up for each other, ever. Romantic Ireland's dead and gone, it's with O'Leary in the grave and all that. Seriously OP stop expecting to see Irish society stand together against anything, they're only interested in keeping each other down, not helping each other by working together. It's seen as very uncool to stand up for yourself or others.

Like the ones arguing on this thread that it's ok to rip people's homes out from under them to hand to a bank because it's "legal", idiots.

Wasn't "Romantic Ireland" dreamt up by the tourist board, along with all those welcomes?

curlzy

token101 wrote: »

Total arrogance

Well now you don't know me, if you did you'd know it's 75% life experience, 20% pessimism and only 5% arrogance.

Chucky the tree

curlzy wrote: »

Wow, just wow, too much to explain. Yep, you're going on the ignore list, your post is just too stupid to have your opinions on my computer screen.

I'll take that as a compliment. If someone with your views agreed with then I'd be very worried.

KeithM89_old

curlzy wrote: »

Wow, just wow, too much to explain. Yep, you're going on the ignore list, your post is just too stupid to have your opinions on my computer screen.

curlzy wrote: »

Yeah I know Francis, I save that threat for only for the worst of the worst. Don't worry though, you're funny, and therefore safe from the dreaded "ignore list:eek:".

curlzy wrote: »

Where in my post do I mention this particular story? I put forth my view on Irish society and it's unwillingness to stand united. I fail to see why I would need details on this particular story as my post doesn't even mention it. If it's merely an inflammatory question to draw me into an argument, you're going onto my ignore list.

No one cares about your ignore list.

Frank Black

I just think it's nice the way we can come together as a group and have a good old argument about the eviction, despite the fact that nobody seems to have a clue about the actual details.

curlzy

ejmaztec wrote: »

Wasn't "Romantic Ireland" dreamt up by the tourist board, along with all those welcomes?

I'm 92.51% sure you're joking but. . . just in case: http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/wbyeats/bl-wbye-sept.htm

curlzy

black francis wrote: »

I just think it's nice the way we can come together as a group and have a good old argument about the eviction, despite the fact that nobody seems to have a clue about the actual details.

I DISAGREE :mad: and other rabblings.

curlzy

KeithM89 wrote: »

No one cares about your ignore list.

Yeah right, you know you're sweating Keith, don't worry though, I don't know if you can add a mod to the ignore list and I'm not bothered finding out so you're safe. For now dun dun dun!

Pandora2

Need a caffeine fix.......all this bickering is giving me a headache!!

humanji

curlzy wrote:

Your post makes no sense. What is it with AH's today?

I'll make it simple:

OP makes a thread.
You reply to the OP, but go off on a tangential rant. You then insult people for no good reason.
People assume you're rant is more associated with the thread topic than it actually is.
You take offence to this, get shirty and insult people.

And instead of simply explaining yourself, you act like a two year old and come off all the poorer for it. And the thread is now little about the actual topic, but a back and forth between yourself and anyone who disagrees with you.

humanji

Now, to go back to the actual topic and an incredibly important question: is there more info on this story that people might know?

The op says that this is only the beginning, but I'd say that currently evictions would be the last thing a bank wants. They could end up being stuck with a load of lemons that nobody will buy, and so lose money on that, and also come out looking like a Dickensian landlord bullying the poor.

It would seem to me to make a lot more sense to keep any current residents living in the house and get wahtever meager rent or repayments that can be afforded.

token101

I am curious as to what happened though. A poster who was there said it was for payment of a loan that was much less than the land value. Obviously no way of knowing if that's true, but assuming it is, wouldn't that mean that the guy could just sell the land and pay off the debt that he owes? I've no sympathy whatsoever if that's the case and these 'protesters' should clear off or be arrested.

curlzy

humanji wrote: »

I'll make it simple:

OP makes a thread.
You reply to the OP, but go off on a tangential rant. You then insult people for no good reason.
People assume you're rant is more associated with the thread topic than it actually is.
You take offence to this, get shirty and insult people.

And instead of simply explaining yourself, you act like a two year old and come off all the poorer for it. And the thread is now little about the actual topic, but a back and forth between yourself and anyone who disagrees with you.

Grow a sense of humour, this is After Hours, not the Dail. Nothing we say here is of any consequence in any sphere of reality. Unclench a bit yeah :rolleyes:

token101

humanji wrote: »

Now, to go back to the actual topic and an incredibly important question: is there more info on this story that people might know?

The op says that this is only the beginning, but I'd say that currently evictions would be the last thing a bank wants. They could end up being stuck with a load of lemons that nobody will buy, and so lose money on that, and also come out looking like a Dickensian landlord bullying the poor.

It would seem to me to make a lot more sense to keep any current residents living in the house and get wahtever meager rent or repayments that can be afforded.

Which would make me think there's more going on here than we are aware of. No point in the bank having lots of assets that they'll ultimately have to maintain or which will lose value rapidly. Might aswell get a reasonable sum and extend the mortgage.

Pandora2

token101 wrote: »

Which would make me think there's more going on here than we are aware of. No point in the bank having lots of assets that they'll ultimately have to maintain or which will lose value rapidly. Might aswell get a reasonable sum and extend the mortgage.

One would think so.....but were they to get into a lot of "Rent to Buy" they would inevitably have to deal with the PRTB/Landlord responsibilities..........can't see them wanting to go there It's a melon scratcher alright!

Leeg17

curlzy wrote: »

Yeah right, you know you're sweating Keith, don't worry though, I don't know if you can add a mod to the ignore list and I'm not bothered finding out so you're safe. For now dun dun dun!

I'm pretty sure you can.

Then I'm also sure I can add you to everyone's ignore list in AH iykwim.

subway

token101 wrote: »

I am curious as to what happened though. A poster who was there said it was for payment of a loan that was much less than the land value. Obviously no way of knowing if that's true, but assuming it is, wouldn't that mean that the guy could just sell the land and pay off the debt that he owes? I've no sympathy whatsoever if that's the case and these 'protesters' should clear off or be arrested.

it has to be untrue, as the owner could simply sell a fraction of the land or all of it and buy somewhere he can afford.
the land is worth less than the outstanding loan, but the homeowner disagreed with that. that wouldn't matter a bit anyway if he was making payments, which he mustn't be to have an eviction ordered.

the between the lines fact are:
homeowner has mortgage of greater value than property which he cannot afford to repay under the agreed terms.

if there is anything more to it than that, i will eat a hat (dont have one myself as i dont have a free house).

steddyeddy

pmcmahon wrote: »

Sykk wrote: »

The law doesn't mean it's morally and officially correct.

If you live in Ireland you live by the law of the land not the law of morals and official correctness.

If you lived in south africa during aparthied you would haved lived under the law rather than morals?

Nothingbetter2d

does this mean there is still a dame street hippy camp? at this point they must really stink bad of bo

Stiffler2

token101 wrote: »

Or people ignoring the law and doing as they please. Great day indeed.

Bertie is that you ??
on yer high horse again ??

Born to Die

In fairness, if the statistics are to be believed we are not really a country for throwing people out of their homes unless they are not making any effort to pay rent/ mortgage.

No back story makes this a non story really.

Frank Black

steddyeddy wrote: »

If you lived in south africa during aparthied you would haved lived under the law rather than morals?

Because this is exactly the same innit?

Chuck Stone

pmcmahon wrote: »

No,it's called being a responsible adult and not relying on society to pick you up.

And what of responsibility when it comes to the banks and people who ran them? *tumbleweed*

People who don't pay their mortgage are just as bad as the banks.

But the banks aren't facing the same consequences as someone who wanted to own his own home. Indeed many of the people who ran these banks are retiring as millionaires.

If true justice was served bankers and property speculators would have all their property and assets seized and be destitute like the guy who loses his home because he was led to believe by 'experts' that property would continue to increase in value.

Will that happen? fuck no.

Laws and moral hazards are for little people.

Teyla Emmagan

Dancor wrote: »

I dont mind people protesting but the reason alot of people hate protesters is becuase of comments like this on th politics.ie link:

Protesting, but not fully aware of the circumstances. :rolleyes:

Pure rent-a-mob, life long protester mentality there.

Yeah, this is the first thing I noticed on that site too. Still LMAO.

"Erin go Brea" flags and the pics hosted on the Occupy Dame Street website. This crowd really have won my respect anyway.

Red_Wake

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And what of responsibility when it comes to the banks and people who ran them? *tumbleweed*



But the banks aren't facing the same consequences as someone who wanted to own his own home. Indeed many of the people who ran these banks are retiring as millionaires.

If true justice was served bankers and property speculators would have all their property and assets seized and be destitute like the guy who loses his home because he was led to believe by 'experts' that property would continue to increase in value.

Will that happen? fuck no.

Laws and moral hazards are for little people.

Are youn suggesting that a person acting on behalf of a company should have their assets seized for their professional incompetence?

Teyla Emmagan

Here's the update from the Laois Nationalist (not regularly quoted from on AH I imagine):

http://www.laois-nationalist.ie/tabId/153/itemId/13804/I-stopped-the-sheriff.aspx

A MOUNTRATH man remains in his house today after a county sheriff failed to evict him from his home yesterday (Monday).

Lee Wellstead (47) has been battling through the commercial courts for the past three years to save his home after being served with an eviction notice from Ulster Bank.

Mr Wellstead said that in 2003 he purchased the three-bedroom, two storey detached house in Knockanina, between Mountrath and Castletown, on approximately four acres of land with a mortgage for €80,000.

Shortly after that, he acquired a €30,000 top-up loan on the mortgage.

He said he fell behind in his €700 monthly repayments in June 2006 and the loan was called in “just 19 days after I missed my last monthly payment”.

Ulster Bank filed for repossession and was granted the order in February 2009. It got its eviction order on 25 August last year.

He said: “I tried to come to arrangements with them, but they refused it. I had an offer of €80,000 on the house and was also receiving €150 a week from letting three stables. But they refused to accept that.”

Speaking to the Laois Nationalist while waiting for the arrival of the county sheriff , Mr Wellstead said that if the bank is successful in evicting him, he will become homeless, which would put in jeopardy his shared custody arrangements for his daughter.

“They will come and seize everything I have in the house and throw it out onto the roadside. I haven’t got anywhere to go yet.”

Mr Wellstead said that the ordeal has put him under mental and physical stress.

“I’ve had to put my life on hold for the past three years to try and deal with this. It caused me huge anxiety and torment.”

Odd that Ulster Bank would try and evict a man who is making repayments on such a small loan. As long as he is actually trying to service the debt that is. It says he missed his first repayment in 2006 and try to negotiate with the bank at that stage and they refused. No work if he's actually paid anything off since though. If he hasn't been giving them anything, of course they are going to try and evict him.

subway

turns out they could have stopped it with a letter to the laios registrar / sheriff, but chose to do this to support their freeman bull****.
lol !

Son Of A Vidic

elvis99 wrote: »

Yawwwwwwn

Quite pathetic really.

elvis99

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Quite pathetic really.

Pathetic? same s**t different day and im fed up hearing it

up for anything

pmcmahon wrote: »

If you live in Ireland you live by the law of the land not the law of morals and official correctness.

Ah yes, but which law of the land - the one that applies to those people in power and their cohorts, or the one that applies to Joe Public? :rolleyes:

The Waltzing Consumer

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Odd that Ulster Bank would try and evict a man who is making repayments on such a small loan. As long as he is actually trying to service the debt that is. It says he missed his first repayment in 2006 and try to negotiate with the bank at that stage and they refused. No work if he's actually paid anything off since though. If he hasn't been giving them anything, of course they are going to try and evict him.

Your last line is probably the most accuate. I meet with people who work in mortgage collections and they bend over backwards to accommodate people. I would say there is a tiny tiny tiny tiny chance they refused to negotiate. It sounds like complete bull. It is never in the banks interest to repossess homes, it costs a lot more money and resources, they don't want to at all, but they are in extreme circumstances forced into it.

As for the ULA protest, :rolleyes:, it reminds me of that nonsense eviction in Dun Laoghaire a while ago where a family consisting of adults living in social housing who had a tiny tiny rent never bothered paying even though one worked and the rest got generous generous social welfare. ULA don't really have set standards in these issues though, anything for a bit of publicity.

Peetrik

Red_Wake wrote: »

Are youn suggesting that a person acting on behalf of a company should have their assets seized for their professional incompetence?

I would suggest it, especially if that incompetence results in putting the country billions in debt. I'd go as far as to suggest not only a financial penalty but perhaps a mandatory term working in their local dole office so that they could interact directly with the people whose lives they had affected.

steddyeddy

black francis wrote: »

Because this is exactly the same innit?

Not at all im illustrating the point that the law comes second when it comes to basic humanity.

Red_Wake

Peetrik wrote: »

I would suggest it, especially if that incompetence results in putting the country billions in debt. I'd go as far as to suggest not only a financial penalty but perhaps a mandatory term working in their local dole office so that they could interact directly with the people whose lives they had affected.

How much responsibilty would you place on the shoulders of the those who took out the unsustainable mortgages?

More to the point, would you impose this 'incompetence penalty' on all professions, and who would it be payable to?

Peetrik

Red_Wake wrote: »

How much responsibilty would you place on the shoulders of the those who took out the unsustainable mortgages?

More to the point, would you impose this 'incompetence penalty' on all professions, and who would it be payable to?

Zero accountability and a golden handshake is more of a deterant in your opinion?

Chuck Stone

Red_Wake wrote: »

Are youn suggesting that a person acting on behalf of a company should have their assets seized for their professional incompetence?

You see that word you've used there 'company'?

Well a company/corporation is a fictional entity that is granted a charter by a government. The corporation and the laws that surround it allow those who own and manage them to walk away from their ashes as millionaires.

Well I'm against that.

I think people like Sean Fitzpatrick should be stripped of property and assets and end up in the dole queue like anyone else who gambled a fortune and lost it.