Gorse Hill eviction ratified by court

sjb25

end of the road wrote: »

what "justice" a reckless bank is being rewarded for failure. rewarded for giving out stupid amounts of money it knew wouldn't be payed back. it doesn't deserve a penny from this property or any for that matter.

The bank has lost most of the money and most likely spent a fortune in court so yes there is some justice I'd rather see the bank get it rather than mr o donnell why should we feel sorry for him as he left the house in his jaguar!!!!! (Bank should take that aswell worth a few euros) he's getting of lucky Give the house back and fcuk of to the uk!!! don't come back I say

end of the road

Stinicker wrote: »

What needs to happen today is to have absolutely no write down and make these people and their families repay every penny owed and if necessary attach the debt to the family lineage forcing everyone belong to them to pay off the debts accrued by their ancestors as necessary.

not at all. a disgusting suggestion that rewards the reckless banks. any attempt to force the families and ancestors to pay off these debts should be met by a refusal to pay by the relatives of the debter, and if needs be a scorch turf policy to ensure nothing can be taken to pay off the debt. a write down is the only way now or simply lose some of the money. if my parents had debts which they don't there is no way in hell i or even my children if i had any would be paying a penny and i would implement a scorch turf policy to ensure there is nothing left that can be used to claw any money from me or my children, and i would tell my children to do the same. get out if needs be.

end of the road

sjb25 wrote: »

The bank has lost most of the money and most likely spent a fortune in court so yes there is some justice I'd rather see the bank get it rather than mr o donnell why should we feel sorry for him as he left the house in his jaguar!!!!! (Bank should take that aswell worth a few euros) he's getting of lucky Give the house back and fcuk of to the uk!!! don't come back I say

the bank deserve every bit of that loss and court fees for being reckless. they don't deserve a penny and all money from the property sale should go back to the state. the bank should take the car? not at all, better to have it crushed then they get it.

pmasterson95

EotR do you understand what collateral is?

sjb25

end of the road wrote: »

the bank deserve every bit of that loss and court fees for being reckless. they don't deserve a penny and all money from the property sale should go back to the state. the bank should take the car? not at all, better to have it crushed then they get it.

While I agree the bank was reckless so was the o donnells so yes let the bank take the car and anything else worth any money that he owes notting but a pr1ck of a man who thinks he can get away with it he deserves to lose it all while yes the bank do aswell iv no sympathy for the o donnells

end of the road

pmasterson95 wrote: »

EotR do you understand what collateral is?

yes . whats your point? i stand by every word

end of the road

sjb25 wrote: »

While I agree the bank was reckless so was the o donnells so yes let the bank take the car and anything else worth any money that he owes notting but a pr1ck of a man who thinks he can get away with it he deserves to lose it all while yes the bank do aswell iv no sympathy for the o donnells

no the state and we the tax payer should get it. the bank shouldn't get a penny. i'm not bothered about whether one has sympathy for the family or not TBH

twilight_singer

Poor Blaise. My boxroom is always there if you need digs

cloud493

Some A-grade trolling right there.

death1234567

Kicking a bankrupt greedy moron out of his €30m house, Oh the humanity!

Cuddlesworth

He's a smart man and knows exactly what he is doing.

The next part will be the more interesting one in this saga, once the property is sold he will still owe at least 50 million which they can finally start trying to recover. He has got at least 3 years of time from frivolous court cases to sink and bury every other asset he has under a pile of shell companies and dodgy deals to family.

pmasterson95

end of the road wrote: »

yes . whats your point? i stand by every word

So in your world if I was to take out a loan I shouldn't have to surrender collateral if I can't make repayments?


I like that system, it definitely suits me.


Do you give out loans?

pmasterson95

end of the road wrote: »

yes . whats your point? i stand by every word

So in your world if I was to take out a loan I shouldn't have to surrender collateral if I can't make repayments?


I like that system, it definitely suits me.


Do you give out loans?

Lollipops23

end of the road wrote: »

how are they "scum" . its not as if the bank actually deserve anything from this propertys sail, the money should go straight to the state as punishment for being reckless

Because they are intentionally frustrating the legal system and refusing to acknowledge that they were,as you say,reckless. They borrowed beyond their means, not for a 3 bed semi, but for several mansions. They were beyond greedy, and of course they weren't the only ones. But the arrogance makes them scum IMO.

end of the road

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Because they are intentionally frustrating the legal system and refusing to acknowledge that they were,as you say,reckless. They borrowed beyond their means, not for a 3 bed semi, but for several mansions. They were beyond greedy, and of course they weren't the only ones. But the arrogance makes them scum IMO.

ah go away oul that. murderers rapists child abusers muggers are scum. this family are nothing in comparison. idiots is all they are, far from "scum"

jaykay74

On arrival, Mr O'Donnell told reporters that he was disappointed by the Supreme Court decision yesterday not to allow them to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal. He said he understood that this was because of "new rules."

Mr O'Donnell said that they had been to court 82 times and had lost 82 times. "Statistically that's impossible," he said.


Well if you have no fcking case you may lose the 82 times!!

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

what "justice" a reckless bank is being rewarded for failure. rewarded for giving out stupid amounts of money it knew wouldn't be payed back. it doesn't deserve a penny from this property or any for that matter.

You appreciate that there was a contract, money was advanced on foot of security, and this has been done since the dawn of time.

There was a breach of the agreement and the bank moved on same. I am not sure why you think banks should not be allowed to act for breach of an agreement. They are not looking for a reward nor was any given, they simply sought the enforcement of the obligations that the parties agreed.

end of the road wrote: »

i would implement a scorch turf policy to ensure there is nothing left

Would a scorched earth policy not be more effective?

sjb25

jaykay74 wrote: »

On arrival, Mr O'Donnell told reporters that he was disappointed by the Supreme Court decision yesterday not to allow them to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal. He said he understood that this was because of "new rules."

Mr O'Donnell said that they had been to court 82 times and had lost 82 times. "Statistically that's impossible," he said.


Well if you have no fcking case you may lose the 82 times!!

When a judge finds out he is hearing these cases

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a breach of the agreement and the bank moved on same. I am not sure why you think banks should not be allowed to act for breach of an agreement. They are not looking for a reward nor was any given, they simply sought the enforcement of the obligations that the parties agreed.

if a bank is reckless as to be bailed out by the tax payer it loses the right to act on anything. such obligations should be taken by the state and enforcement action taken by the state, all proceeds of any enforcement of obligations should be taken by the state as payment for the bailout, avoiding the bank completely and ensuring the tax payer gets every penny back and more.

mickdw

end of the road wrote: »

if a bank is reckless as to be bailed out by the tax payer it loses the right to act on anything. any proceeds of any enforcement of obligations should be taken by the state as payment for the bailout, avoiding the bank completely and ensuring the tax payer gets every penny back and more.

If the bank didn't act on this and recover 7 million or so from the sale, and if they also failed to act on hundreds of other cases where mortgages are not being paid, the hole in the banks books would have to be filled by another cash injection from government.

diomed

jaykay74 wrote: »

Mr O'Donnell said that they had been to court 82 times and had lost 82 times. "Statistically that's impossible," he said.

About the same result as me playing Rafael Nadal in tennis. I'm in my 60s and don't play tennis.
To sum up, if you have no game, move on, and don't waste peoples time.

Magico Gonzalez

end of the road wrote: »

if a bank is reckless as to be bailed out by the tax payer it loses the right to act on anything. any proceeds of any enforcement of obligations should be taken by the state as payment for the bailout, avoiding the bank completely and ensuring the tax payer gets every penny back and more.

Given the Irish people are rightly or wrongly shouldering the burden for the banks losses it stands to reason those losses by recouped where possible and, i would argue, humanely possible.

"Scumbag" is over the top and unecessary but there is certainly a galling lack of respect and awareness for his felllow Irish families, none of whom were afforded a loan to buy a mansion, many of whom struggle greatly to pay their bills.

What you fail to understand is that via a bailout the irish taxpayer has effectively invested in the banking system, as such every effort needs to be made to make sure viable entities emerge from this, affording the possiblity of a return on this investment as was the case with some of the larger companies in the US.

end of the road

mickdw wrote: »

If the bank didn't act on this and recover 7 million or so from the sale, and if they also failed to act on hundreds of other cases where mortgages are not being paid, the hole in the banks books would have to be filled by another cash injection from government.

or, let them go to the wall. we'd suffer more but frankly any bank reckless enough as many of them were would be no loss and their loss would be worth some hardship IMO

end of the road

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Given the Irish people are rightly or wrongly shouldering the burden for the banks losses it stands to reason those losses by recouped where possible and, i would argue, humanely possible.

"Scumbag" is over the top and unecessary but there is certainly a galling lack of respect and awareness for his felllow Irish families, none of whom were afforded a loan to buy a mansion, many of whom struggle greatly to pay their bills.

What you fail to understand is that via a bailout the irish taxpayer has effectively invested in the banking system, as such every effort needs to be made to make sure viable entities emerge from this, affording the possiblity of a return on this investment as was the case with some of the larger companies in the US.

the losses should be recouped by the state making sure we do actually get the money. the state could get a return infact probably a bit extra by taking all the proceeds of these losses at source. at the end of the day the banks don't deserve to be able to have it for their nonsense behaviour.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

or, let them go to the wall. we'd suffer more but frankly any bank reckless enough as many of them were would be no loss and their loss would be worth some hardship IMO

or maybe do something crazy like get people to pay back the money they have borrowed. No wait, thats silly. it would never work

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

if a bank is reckless as to be bailed out by the tax payer it loses the right to act on anything.

I am not sure I ever heard of that.

It would be an interesting idea. For example, people on the dole who never worked a day, if they have a claim the State should take it off them for bailing them out over the years. Is that the idea?

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

or maybe do something crazy like get people to pay back the money they have borrowed. No wait, thats silly. it would never work

pay back the money yet it goes straight to the state, yes

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not sure I ever heard of that.

It would be an interesting idea. For example, people on the dole who never worked a day, if they have a claim the State should take it off them for bailing them out over the years. Is that the idea?

no, just banks being so reckless as to almost bankrupt a country. its a special case. otherwise i wouldn't be making such a suggestion

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

pay back the money yet it goes straight to the state, yes

you do realise that AIB is practically owned by the state, right?

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you do realise that AIB is practically owned by the state, right?

yes . but i'm talking about throwing the banks out to the wolves as should have been done in the first place

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

yes . but i'm talking about throwing the banks out to the wolves as should have been done in the first place

but the government own the bank. how is throwing your own investment to the wolves a good idea for the government? how does the government benefit from that. your grasp of economics is somewhat flaky.

somejoke

End Game: Receivers have taken possession of Gorse Hill in Killiney after solicitor Brian O'Donnell and his wife Dr Mary Patricia O'Donnell left the property.

ianobrien

Has anybody noticed on the news coverage that Brian O'Donnell is leaving for the BoI AGM in a UK reg car? If that was his vehicle isn't he supposed to pay VRT? Also, as it allegedly driven by the "new land league"'s Mr Beades (according to the RTE news website), isn't it illegal for an Irish Resident to drive a foreign registered car here in Ireland under a Finance act?

I think this shows how much respect they have for the laws of the state.

As an aside, MP is shown driving an Irish reg car.

ianobrien

ianobrien wrote: »

Has anybody noticed on the news coverage that Brian O'Donnell is leaving for the BoI AGM in a UK reg car? If that was his vehicle isn't he supposed to pay VRT? Also, as it allegedly driven by the "new land league"'s Mr Beades (according to the RTE news website), isn't it illegal for an Irish Resident to drive a foreign registered car here in Ireland under a Finance act?

I think this shows how much respect they have for the laws of the state.

As an aside, MP is shown driving an Irish reg car.

Nothing against the law in driving the vehicle as long as it is street legal and your insurance covers it.

allibastor

I just cant my head around it, he owes 70 million.

Why are people worried about defending him.

Do they stick up as much for families who live in dirty flats, or those who work but have so much outgoings from tax, usc, mortgage, childcare etc that they cant eat a decent meal??

seamus

ianobrien wrote: »

Has anybody noticed on the news coverage that Brian O'Donnell is leaving for the BoI AGM in a UK reg car? If that was his vehicle isn't he supposed to pay VRT? Also, as it allegedly driven by the "new land league"'s Mr Beades (according to the RTE news website), isn't it illegal for an Irish Resident to drive a foreign registered car here in Ireland under a Finance act?

Yes it is. And you can be guaranteed that if he was charged, he would fight tooth and nail to prove that he's not an Irish resident and without a hint of irony walk into the court next door and fight tooth and nail to prove he is an Irish resident.

He's a lovely man of strong moral fibre.

ianobrien

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing against the law in driving the vehicle as long as it is street legal and your insurance covers it.

Nope. IIRC it's in the '92 Finance act (or something equally obscure) that it's illegal for an Irish resident to drive a foreign registered car. I know of a few Irish residents that have been caught for driving UK cars here (even when they were insured)

AlekSmart

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing against the law in driving the vehicle as long as it is street legal and your insurance covers it.

Not quite as simple methinks.....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/customs-seizes-cars-from-ukreg-tax-cheats-28895239.html

All cars in the State, other than those brought in temporarily by visitors, must be registered with the Revenue Commissioners before they can be licensed for road tax.

Those who import such vehicles should have them re-registered within 24 hours of arrival in the country.

The VRT, a percentage of the expected open market price of the car, must then be paid within 30 days.

When the VRT payment has been paid, new Republic of Ireland number plates are issued and must be displayed within three days.

Motorists convicted in court of driving on yellow plates face a first-time fine of up to €5,000.

....But,of course if the bould O'Donnell is only visitin' then there's nothing to worry about

end of the road

allibastor wrote: »

I just cant my head around it, he owes 70 million.

Why are people worried about defending him.

Do they stick up as much for families who live in dirty flats, or those who work but have so much outgoings from tax, usc, mortgage, childcare etc that they cant eat a decent meal??

the new land league do i believe.

mickdw

Jerry beads (new Land league) is a bankrupt developer and his only interest here is to promote debt write off to aid his own situation.

kenmc

mathie wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/brian-odonnell-tosses-keys-of-gorse-hill-at-bank-of-ireland-boss-31181741.html



... but actually possible if you're in the wrong.

yeah I love that, he's a lawyer, but obviously reckons judicial decisions are based on a coin toss. 82 heads in a row, yes that's definitely unlikely, not impossible.
but if you continue to bet the earth is flat, you'll lose forever. idiot. . best thing bofi can do is raze this monument to stupidity to the ground.

Cold War Kid

Despite the anti middle-class drivel from these kinda groups... this guy, Gilroy, Darcy and all the rest of them former money-grabbing property fetishists (whom I really doubt were too concerned with "the little people" during the halcyon days) are somehow ok and not enemy middle-class people.

Ally Dick

end of the road wrote: »

or, let them go to the wall. we'd suffer more but frankly any bank reckless enough as many of them were would be no loss and their loss would be worth some hardship IMO

Yes. Wipe out pension funds which have invested in bank shares. What a splendid idea

AlekSmart

AlekSmart wrote: »

Not quite as simple methinks.....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/customs-seizes-cars-from-ukreg-tax-cheats-28895239.html



....But,of course if the bould O'Donnell is only visitin' then there's nothing to worry about

As I said, nothing in the law that prevents him driving it.

To Elland Back

They're heading now to the European Court of Human Rights. Just let it sink in for a minute as to the type of abuse that court was originally set up for and compare them to a pair of cnuts who think their 'human rights' are being abused by not being allowed to live in luxury while owing us all millions

Valetta

end of the road wrote: »

pay back the money yet it goes straight to the state, yes

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you do realise that AIB is practically owned by the state, right?

It's Bank of Ireland who are owed the money, and as far as I know they have paid back every € that the state lent them.

If only the O'Donnells were as honourable.

Patser

ianobrien wrote: »

Has anybody noticed on the news coverage that Brian O'Donnell is leaving for the BoI AGM in a UK reg car? If that was his vehicle isn't he supposed to pay VRT? Also, as it allegedly driven by the "new land league"'s Mr Beades (according to the RTE news website), isn't it illegal for an Irish Resident to drive a foreign registered car here in Ireland under a Finance act?

I think this shows how much respect they have for the laws of the state.

As an aside, MP is shown driving an Irish reg car.

Fairly sure that Jag belongs to Jeremy Beades, and that I've seen the reg commented on before.

To Elland Back

To Elland Back wrote: »

They're heading now to the European Court of Human Rights. Just let it sink in for a minute as to the type of abuse that court was originally set up for and compare them to a pair of cnuts who think their 'human rights' are being abused by not being allowed to live in luxury while owing us all millions

If they were down to their last (small) house, then I may have some (using a microscopic violin) symphony for them.

ohnonotgmail

Valetta wrote: »

It's Bank of Ireland who are owed the money, and as far as I know they have paid back every € that the state lent them.

If only the O'Donnells were as honourable.

my mistake. thought it was AIB

the_syco

end of the road wrote: »

yes . but i'm talking about throwing the banks out to the wolves as should have been done in the first place

So there'd be no banks? And who in their right mind would lend money to someone in a country who has no banks?