Insolvent? 'Sell your wedding ring' - Alan Shatter

inforfun

TeddyTedson wrote: »

€20, 000 I think you mean
If not and she said yeah you're definitely on to a keeper there

So that is why i have all these people at the door wanting money from me. I always use full stops in stead of comma's when paying bills

Dyr

Colmustard wrote: »

Could you please explain to me why the man's religion has ANYTHING to do with this debate or his performance as a minister.

I await your explanation and don't suggest your disgusting snide comment was meant to be a joke.

Oh hai there high horsey, await away. Don't remember mentioning his choice of make believe friend at all at all.

golden lane

if you owe someone money......you should pay it back, that is what you agreed to.

selling personal belongings to do that.....is ok.

not happy with that!!!!.....don't borrow..

Colmustard

Bambi wrote: »

Oh hai there high horsey, await away. Don't remember mentioning his choice of make believe friend at all at all.

Yeah it was a coincidence that you mentioned Shylock in a thread referencing Alan Shatter.

Maybe I am reading to much into it.

Gurgle

Isn't there a minimum value to assets considered in bankruptcy?

Biggins

In reality, whats going to happen I suspect is something like the following.

Mr & Mrs X owe a fortune and are not paying.
Previously they bought (invested?) in a bloody expensive ring.
They don't wish to part with it.
They buy a cheaper ring to use as a fob-off to the government/court/etc
They hide the better ring.

1. How is any court going to know where/when a ring has been bought and for how much?

2. How are they going to afford to do the above research to find out about any rings ("we only have a cheap one your honour!" - might take an army of detectives?

...And thats just for a ring!

later12

Bruce7 wrote: »

Shatter's firm are notorious for being the most expensive solicitors in Ireland to use in a divorce. They gouge massive sums out of people whose marriages have broken down. His firm make an average of 200,000 - 300,000 per divorce.

Oh that's awful.

And does he drag them out of their houses and march them into his practice as well?

Suffice it to say that he is not sentimental about marriage

He's a former practicing solicitor, not a marriage counsellor. It's his practice's job to facilitate clients when they apply for advice or assistance with a divorce case they wish to bring. You appear to have a personal issue with Alan Shatter more than anything else, because you're really not putting forward anything relevant to the point relating to jewellery assets, preferring instead to launch an ad hominem on the man himself.

wonderfulname

The idea of exempting a wedding or engagement ring is insane to be honest, even when it comes to an average person with a credit union loan they can't pay off, if you have a 5k loan and 3k sitting on your finger I don't understand claiming you can't pay up.

When you scale up and realise there are people with wedding rings more valuable than houses it would be obscene to see them left with them yet declared broke, at the end of the day the sentimental value of a wedding ring isn't that high at all, the important thing taken from a wedding is the person you married, I don't get why a useless object gets put on such a pedestal in that context.

Gurgle

wonderfulname wrote: »

people with wedding rings more valuable than houses it would be obscene to see them left with them yet declared broke

Exactly.
Bankruptcy is what happens when you can't pay your debts. You owe money to somebody, and if you've been declared bankrupt that means they're not getting it back. Ever.

These days a €50k unpaid invoice could sink a business that's been barely staying above water. Can you imagine letting your staff go after a court proceeding where the 'bankrupt' party is sitting there wearing this kind of money on their left hand ?

Dr Turk Turkelton

Colmustard wrote: »

Bambi wrote: »

Oh hai there high horsey, await away. Don't remember mentioning his choice of make believe friend at all at all.

Yeah it was a coincidence that you mentioned Shylock in a thread referencing Alan Shatter.

Maybe I am reading to much into it.

I believe you are reading far to much into this Colmustard.

It is well known in many places that the majority of jewellers come from the same religion as minister Shatter.

The term Shylock is also used by these people to describe their own job when they are moneylenders.

I think you may be getting a little too politically correct or sensitive.

Ps also this thread is in afterhours so by that standard is quite mild!

edit:just noticed another thread with generalizations started in after hours will you be going there to defend the Parisians or is it just people of the Jewish faith your defending?

Goat the dote

My engagement ring and wedding ring cost a total of 2200. Between them. The wedding ring was custom made to fit around the engagement ring. They would only take it from my cold dead hand. To some it might just be a piece of metal, to me it symbolises my marriage and family.

jimmycrackcorm

TommyKnocker wrote: »

It would be my opinion that Alan Shatter and his ilk can **** right off with this idea tbh.

The only folks who this would affect would be the normal Joe/Joesphine Soap.

The like of Seanie and his mates would transfer ownership of any jewelry over to their cat or budgie and get away with it and usual by hiding in up north, while 85 yr old magie would have the rings ripped from her fingers becuse she didn't pay her household charge.

There's a lot of advertising over recent years for new goldsmith type shops where people can sell their jewellery. I'd presume that the target market is Joe and Josephine soap. Hence the only objections are whether they have sell jewellery or have a choice to.

Colmustard

Cuchulainn1. wrote: »

I believe you are reading far to much into this Colmustard.

It is well known in many places that the majority of jewellers come from the same religion as minister Shatter.

The term Shylock is also used by these people to describe their own job when they are moneylenders.

I think you may be getting a little too politically correct or sensitive.

Ps also this thread is in afterhours so by that standard is quite mild!

edit:just noticed another thread with generalizations started in after hours will you be going there to defend the Parisians or is it just people of the Jewish faith your defending?

Really so every Jew is a jeweller, but the policy from the one we are debating about is a minister. Here I will let mr Shakespeare teach you something about creedism. I quote Shylock. He wasn't meant to be perceived as the evil one but a figure of sympathy, but Shakespeare, he's always ambiguous.

Shylock: I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

Chuck Stone

Gold teeth?









Godwinned?

Dr Turk Turkelton

Colmustard wrote: »

Cuchulainn1. wrote: »

I believe you are reading far to much into this Colmustard.

It is well known in many places that the majority of jewellers come from the same religion as minister Shatter.

The term Shylock is also used by these people to describe their own job when they are moneylenders.

I think you may be getting a little too politically correct or sensitive.

Ps also this thread is in afterhours so by that standard is quite mild!

edit:just noticed another thread with generalizations started in after hours will you be going there to defend the Parisians or is it just people of the Jewish faith your defending?

Really so every Jew is a jeweller, but the policy from the one we are debating about is a minister. Here I will let mr Shakespeare teach you something about creedism. I quote Shylock. He wasn't meant to be perceived as the evil one but a figure of sympathy, but Shakespeare, he's always ambiguous.

Shylock: I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

I said the majority of jewellers in certain parts of the world not the majority of Jews.

If I wanted to make a crass generalisation about the majority of Jews I would call them land grabbers or Gaza Strip occupiers but I don't want to get into those generalisations.

inforfun

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Gold teeth?









Godwinned?

Goldwinned.
maybe.

sameoldname

Biggins wrote: »

In reality, whats going to happen I suspect is something like the following.

Mr & Mrs X owe a fortune and are not paying.
Previously they bought (invested?) in a bloody expensive ring.
They don't wish to part with it.
They buy a cheaper ring to use as a fob-off to the government/court/etc
They hide the better ring.

1. How is any court going to know where/when a ring has been bought and for how much?

2. How are they going to afford to do the above research to find out about any rings ("we only have a cheap one your honour!" - might take an army of detectives?

...And thats just for a ring!

I would imagine that anything of that nature that is worth a significant amount would generally be insured by the owner, or at least declared on their house insurance would it not? I'm sure the courts could get access to that information in the case of bankruptcy?

Biggins

sameoldname wrote: »

I would imagine that anything of that nature that is worth a significant amount would generally be insured by the owner, or at least declared on their house insurance would it not? I'm sure the courts could get access to that information in the case of bankruptcy?

There would be court application (other possible legal dispute about right to know?) I suppose for that alone.

what if you have no jewellery left, its all been pawned, what then, sell pussie??

people like him who are on great salaries have no feckin clue, its like they get a lobotomy as soon as they go through the doors of Dail

Micky Dolenz

Keep your hands off my ring, burn the German bond holders instead.

Gurgle

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Keep your hands off my ring, burn the German bond holders instead.

You don't entirely understand the concept of personal bankruptcy, do you?

davet82

Jake1 wrote: »

what if you have no jewellery left, its all been pawned, what then, sell pussie??

no, most likely they'll start pulling teeth :rolleyes:

Micky Dolenz

Gurgle wrote: »

You don't entirely understand the concept of personal bankruptcy, do you?

Hell yeah, now stop eying up my ring.

Biggins

davet82 wrote: »

no, most likely they'll start pulling teeth :rolleyes:

They could make a film out of that and call it Jaws!
The sharks come out looking for blood!

Bruce7

later12 wrote: »

Oh that's awful.

And does he drag them out of their houses and march them into his practice as well?

I doubt it. But he goes to considerable lengths to make sure that people don't know how much he charges, so that people will continue to enter his practice unaware of how much of their joint wealth he is going to grab for himself.

I get the impression you know what the underlined part refers to?

later12 wrote: »

He's a former practicing solicitor, not a marriage counsellor. It's his practice's job to facilitate clients when they apply for advice or assistance with a divorce case they wish to bring.

He does more than facilitate his clients. He takes them to the facking cleaners.