Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

Guy:Incognito

simongurnick wrote: »

Doesn't matter what age they are.

Obviously not to the people with the adjenda, throw out "elderly " as an important part of the narrative enough times till it sticks, get corrected, then pass it off as unimportant in an attempt to bury it and everyone will still remember it as elderly people involved. More bull****.

riemann

riemann wrote: »

I wonder how many lads will be signing up for the next eviction down south?

Not many I'd venture.

I wonder how banks will look at lending to farmers?

This isn't the first time this type of thing has happened.

expectationlost

the_syco wrote: »

Unknown. The poster didn't expand, thus I said alleged.
But on page 41 of https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/foodindustrydevelopmenttrademarkets/agri-foodandtheeconomy/foodharvest2020/2020FoodHarvestEng240810.pdf it mentions that "the dairy sector in the medium to long term are positive", and that "the industry at all levels must engage on alternative options for financing the expansion in capacity to process anticipated volume growth" would seem to mean that farmers should expand their capacity to process the anticipated volume? Fairly sure the price of milk then tanked.

they has quota restrictions on milk which were lifted in 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_quota presumably that was planned thing and it known prices could drop

Cupatae

gandalf wrote: »

How?

Have you read the article and watched the video? its fairly obvious...

blueythebear

Mrsmum wrote: »

Quite a lot of people were very annoyed with Preti Patel comments regarding using food shortages in Ireland to push for a better Brexit deal and the reason for the annoyance was the historical context of the famine and Britian's role in starving Ireland. Is it so different for the people of Strokestown, where there was a historic mass eviction called the Strokestown Massacre, to be angry at British people coming in to do this eviction.

My post was in response to something else entirely but I can understand that people might get annoyed about Northern Irish security personnel carrying out evictions. I personally think it's ridiculous but I can understand others have a different view.

However, the historical context from over 150 years to what was a legal eviction today, is not an excuse for what ensued last night. Totally wrong and totally illegal. You want to challenge an eviction, go to Court. THere are mechanisms in place to deal with this type of thing.

end of the road

the_syco wrote: »

The state told them to leave. They didn't leave. Thus, they lost the protection of the state. You receive the protection of the state when you follow the law.

this is not correct. you receive the protection of the state regardless of whether you follow the law or not. therefore they did not lose the protection of the state when they didn't leave.

gandalf wrote: »

Roflol UDA attack! First it was "the famine made me do it" and now we have the classic "UDA attack".

The guys did not pay their way on a debt, the bank foreclosed, they didn't feck off and the bank forcibly removed them under the watch of the Gardai. What did they expect from the sheriff and his sub contractors a lap dance and a handjob!

well, certainly not being manhandled by unregulated hired goons, who if the claims about them are true, may be, or have been in the past, a potential threat to the state, as the belief system they are alleged to have been, or are alleged to be allied to, does not think very much of the irish state or irish people.

simongurnick

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Obviously not to the people with the adjenda, throw out "elderly " as an important part of the narrative enough times till it sticks, get corrected, then pass it off as unimportant in an attempt to bury it and everyone will still remember it as elderly people involved. More bull****.

No need for bull****. Let's keep it clear. Loyalist thugs evicting anyone from their homes is not on and I'm glad to see these locals not standing for it.

Cupatae

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I wonder how banks will look at lending to farmers?

This isn't the first time this type of thing has happened.

I wonder what will happen the banks when they try to go head to head with farmers and average people, be interesting to see how long the banks last..

noodler

It's looking more and more like this standard enough, if unsavoury, act of repossession is being hijacked by by Dodgey republican elements latching onto where the security staff were from.

Since it changes nothing and is all a bit of bravado in the end, you have to concur actually doing a whip around for the mortgage at any stage over the last couple of years would have been the really community focused action.

eagle eye

riemann wrote:

I wonder how many lads will be signing up for the next eviction down south?
Not many I'd venture.

They are thugs, they'll sign up again.

Guy:Incognito

simongurnick wrote: »

No need for bull****. Let's keep it clear. Loyalist thugs evicting anyone from their homes is not on and I'm glad to see these locals not standing for it.

The only bull**** is the people pushing the "poor elderly" narrative.

Local thigs are grand though, yeah?

Oh, and it's not their home, it's the banks.

blueythebear

simongurnick wrote: »

No need for bull****. Let's keep it clear. Loyalist thugs evicting anyone from their homes is not on and I'm glad to see these locals not standing for it.

I have a suspicion that a good portion of the individuals involved were not local

GarIT

Cupatae wrote: »

I love how all the people on here instantly side with the banks, people have short memories..recession anyone?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

riemann

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I wonder how banks will look at lending to farmers?

This isn't the first time this type of thing has happened.

I expect business as usual.

Maybe have a look at the value of the Irish agriculture before attempting smart comments.

What might happen is a reduction in hiring loyalist paramilitary thugs as enforcers.

Don't worry if you don't understand.

noodler

Cupatae wrote: »

I wonder what will happen the banks when they try to go head to head with farmers and average people, be interesting to see how long the banks last..

WTF does that even mean?

Banks will charge farmers more for loans if they risk increases they they will default or the security can't be recalled. Its not them going "head-to-head" with anyone.

Christ such generalistic bull****.

simongurnick

blueythebear wrote: »

I have a suspicion that a good portion of the individuals involved were not local

Based on what?

Cupatae

noodler wrote: »

WTF does that even mean?

Banks will charge farmers more for loans if they risk increases they they will default or the security can't be recalled. Its not them going "head-to-head" with anyone.

Christ such generalistic bull****.

You realize how much agriculture in ireland is worth right? how do you think the banks "Punishing" them or what ever nonsense it is your on about will go down?

noodler

riemann wrote: »

I expect business as usual.

Maybe have a look at the value of the Irish agriculture before attempting smart comments.

What might happen is a reduction in hiring loyalist paramilitary thugs as enforcers.

Don't worry if you don't understand.

I think the thread has had enough of you "suggesting" people look up fairly vague concepts or historical events.

simongurnick

noodler wrote: »

WTF does that even mean?

Banks will charge farmers more for loans if they risk increases they they will default or the security can't be recalled. Its not them going "head-to-head" with anyone.

Christ such generalistic bull****.[/quote

Banks will charge a specific subset of society higher for loans? What are you on about?

blueythebear

simongurnick wrote: »

Based on what?

Nothing more than my own intuition and some facebook commentary I've seen

gandalf

Cupatae wrote: »

Have you read the article and watched the video? its fairly obvious...

You're the one that said it please enlighten me from your perspective.

STB.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Can you point to the regulations? They're not bouncers in a nightclub

The Private Security Services Act 2004 is the primary legislation under which the Private Security Authority operates.　The Act was amended by Part 4 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011. All of the legislation is >>

https://www.psa.gov.ie/en/PSA/Pages/legislation

No they are not bouncers in a nightclub. These guys are in many cases ex militia allowed run undocumented, unchecked and unregulated.

Charlie Flanagan Minister for Justice is quoted from last September as saying “The persons involved in the execution of the High Court order are not licensable by the Private Security Authority at present but my officials are examining the law governing this area and I intend to give this matter further consideration.”

Guy:Incognito

Cupatae wrote: »

You realize how much agriculture in ireland is worth right? how do you think the banks "Punishing" them or what ever nonsense it is your on about will go down?

It's worth **** all from a banks point of view if they don't get repayed . So they'll put tighter lending rules or higher rates on people on problem areas. Or just not take the risk on them at al.

simongurnick

blueythebear wrote: »

Nothing more than my own intuition and some facebook commentary I've seen

Must be gospel then

noodler

Cupatae wrote: »

You realize how much agriculture in ireland is worth right? how do you think the banks "Punishing" them or what ever nonsense it is your on about will go down?

You realise the government already has to get involved with subsidies to allow many farmers to borrow from banks at more reasonable rates?

Do you actually realise that? You should also look up how often the IFA, ICMSA and other farming bodies complain about the cost and availability of credit from banks as it is.

riemann

noodler wrote: »

I think the thread has had enough of you "suggesting" people look up fairly vague concepts or historical events.

Thank you for your feedback.

blueythebear

simongurnick wrote: »

Must be gospel then

Your condescension is noted but the site is here for discussion and opinions. I've given my opinion and I'll find out if I'm correct when news of arrests come in I;m sure.

gandalf

end of the road wrote: »

well, certainly not being manhandled by unregulated hired goons, who if the claims about them are true, may be, or have been in the past, a potential threat to the state, as the belief system they are alleged to have been, or are alleged to be allied to, does not think very much of the irish state or irish people.

Well according to earlier posters on this thread they don't have to be regulated to enforce a high court order. Which is news to me and as I said to you in an earlier reply it should have oversight and regulation.

Again what type of person is acceptable for this type of job? I suspect none are.

simongurnick

blueythebear wrote: »

Your condescension is noted but the site is here for discussion and opinions. I've given my opinion and I'll find out if I'm correct when news of arrests come in I;m sure.

Fair enough

nobody should have to pay their debts because:

- de banks!
- de farmers and de land tadhg!
- de nordies!
- de FAMINE!

lads weve been in charge if running ourselves for a century of the most rapid change probably in human history, barring the few years recently where our more scrupulous european colleagues had to come in and babysit us

why the fcuk dye think that had to happen?

clue- it wasnt the brits or the famine or the banks or dare i say it fg even

it was paddy the cute hoor never being to blame for anything and paddy the tantrum when he was called to account and paddy the thick fcuker looking to pull the balaclava on when anyone tried to enforce the rules and consequences he didnt like

for as long as we cheer on those three paddies we can expect to be blaming everyone else for our misfortune, but between ourselves we might be better off trying a diffferent tack just for the novelty at least if nothin else wha

Hilly Bill

pablo128 wrote: »

Another thing. You know there was a house sold in Dublin last week for millions. Only a few years ago there was a woman murdered on the porch. It didn't seem to put the new buyers off.

I doubt if the woman was still on the porch though

simongurnick

[Deleted User] wrote: »

nobody should have to pay their debts because:

- de banks!
- de farmers and de land tadhg!
- de nordies!
- de FAMINE!

lads weve been in charge if running ourselves for a century of the most rapid change probably in human history, barring the few years recently where our more scrupulous european colleagues had to come in and babysit us

why the fcuk dye think that had to happen?

clue- it wasnt the brits or the famine or the banks or dare i say it fg even

it was paddy the cute hoor never being to blame for anything and paddy the tantrum when he was called to account and paddy the thick fcuker looking to pull the balaclava on when anyone tried to enforce the rules and consequences he didnt like

for as long as we cheer on those three paddies we can expect to be blaming everyone else for our misfortune, but between ourselves we might be better off trying a diffferent tack just for the novelty at least if nothin else wha

Nonsense. How many people ditched their homes in the states during sub prime. Paddy nothing.

MrMusician18

nice_guy80 wrote: »

If any of ye knew the history of Strokestown and the area in relation to evictions during the 19th century you would understand the strong feelings of a family being turned out of their home (owing money or not)

People don't forget these things in rural areas.

It's not their home anymore, they lost it when they didn't service their debt. They voluntarily took out loans on this property that they used as collateral and didn't keep the agreed terms. A high court order is only obtained at the end of the process, when all avenues have been exhausted and/or the debtor hasn't engaged with the creditor. The past has no bearing on this, the reasons being totally different.

The one thing I do see coming out of this are that loans for farming businesses will become both expensive and hard to get. Why would a bank lend to a farmer, when they can't effectively take control of the collateral should the debtor default? Dealing with these farmers wouldn't be worth the hassle.

Hard to see where this goes now? Maybe the bank will back off, but that leaves them open to being abused by all their other debtors. My guess is the bank will double down, now that they have control of the house and leave it uninhabitable by disconnecting services.

KBC bank were throwing money around like confetti. When things went wrong what happened? They got a bailout from the Belgians:

KBC given state bailout after €3.6bn loss

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/kbc-given-state-bailout-after-3-6bn-loss-1.764037

The bank, which is Belgian-owned, had been conducting a strategic review of its operations in Ireland.

As previously explained by Fora, KBC Ireland was loss-making for years after the crash and required a bailout of about €1.4 billion from its parent company.

https://www.thejournal.ie/kbc-ireland-jobs-staying-2-3230891-Feb2017/

The company now has about 200,000 Irish retail customers, or about 11% of the home-loan market. It added almost 50,000 new customers in the first nine months of 2016, and made a profit of €89 million during that period.

However, just under half of its loan book is still classified as impaired. While this number has been coming down, working through the bad loans is still a headwind for the bank.

KBC announced at the start of 2016 that it was going to conduct a “strategic review” of its Irish business.

https://fora.ie/kbc-ireland-review-sale-3227212-Feb2017/

more reading: https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/bailout-hits-1-3bn-as-kbc-pumps-130m-into-irish-arm-30890353.html
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/kbc-ireland-begins-repayments-of-belgian-parent-bailout-1.3182296

When half your loan book is impaired then your lending practices were 'impaired'. The banks recourse is to go begging for money from taxpayers or to hold them over a barrel because they will destroy the economy if they go bust (multiple worldwide banks had exposure to KBC - its in the links if youre interested).

Of course borrowers just get kicked out. I`m glad someone is finally kicked back against the banks. I hope they kick good and hard and don`t stop because no reforms were made. I`ve no sympathy for the banks.

I do have sympathy for the tax payers who end up with the bill for both crazy lending and crazy borrowing. But I pick the people over the banks.

simongurnick

simongurnick wrote: »

Nonsense. How many people ditched their homes in the states during sub prime. Paddy nothing.

every country in the world had the auditors in runnings things for years after did they

must have missed that

yer middle name...wouldnt be paddy be any chance

gandalf

You are aware that KBC got a bailout from Belgian taxpayers?

Larbre34

I'm laughing at the notion that this mississippi burning will put off the nordie mercenaries from taking security gigs of this nature.

All it means is that their price just went up.

end of the road

gandalf wrote: »

Well according to earlier posters on this thread they don't have to be regulated to enforce a high court order. Which is news to me and as I said to you in an earlier reply it should have oversight and regulation.

Again what type of person is acceptable for this type of job? I suspect none are.

i personally answered this back in the thread suggesting either gardai, or a new state force designed to deal with enforcement matters in relation to civil law. cutting out any private involvement in the matter apart from legal defence.

blueythebear

Deleted User wrote: »

KBC bank were throwing money around like confetti. When things went wrong what happened? They got a bailout:


https://www.irishtimes.com/business/kbc-given-state-bailout-after-3-6bn-loss-1.764037

https://www.thejournal.ie/kbc-ireland-jobs-staying-2-3230891-Feb2017/


https://fora.ie/kbc-ireland-review-sale-3227212-Feb2017/

more reading: https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/bailout-hits-1-3bn-as-kbc-pumps-130m-into-irish-arm-30890353.html
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/kbc-ireland-begins-repayments-of-belgian-parent-bailout-1.3182296

When half your loan book is impaired then your lending practices were 'impaired'. The banks recourse is to go begging for money from taxpayers or to hold them over a barrel because they will destroy the economy if they go bust (multiple worldwide banks had exposure to KBC - its in the links if youre interested).

Of course borrowers just get kicked out. I`m glad someone is finally kicked back against the banks. I hope they kick good and hard and don`t stop because no reforms were made. I`ve no sympathy for the banks.

I do have sympathy for the tax payers who end up with the bill for both crazy lending and crazy borrowing. But I pick the people over the banks.

A bailout from the Belgian parent company which itself was bailed out by the Belgian Government 9 years ago...how is this fact relevant ? A Belgian bank did not tank the Irish economy

Effects

The house and land were a guarantee on a loan their nephew took out, not them.

WillieMason

Bad day for the Garda in Roscommon

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/hundreds-protest-in-castlerea-over-men-s-alleged-assault-by-garda-1.3733223

Guy:Incognito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

KBC bank were throwing money around like confetti. When things went wrong what happened? They got a bailout:


https://www.irishtimes.com/business/kbc-given-state-bailout-after-3-6bn-loss-1.764037

THE BELGIAN government was again called to prop up its banking sector yesterday



First line of the article.

MrMusician18

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'm laughing at the notion that this mississippi burning will put off the nordie mercenaries from taking security gigs of this nature.

All it means is that their price just went up.

It means that they will be ready the next time the locals try this.

If this is repeated, I could really see the violence escalating. Btw, the local Representatives reaction to this was disgraceful.

eagle eye

MrMusician18 wrote:

Hard to see where this goes now? Maybe the bank will back off, but that leaves them open to being abused by all their other debtors. My guess is the bank will double down, now that they have control of the house and leave it uninhabitable by disconnecting services.

You can count me in to join the folks who want to stop the thugs from NI if the decide to send them again.
I don't get involved in these things ever but thugs have to be stopped so I'll join the locals if they want my assistance.

STB.

gandalf wrote: »

Well according to earlier posters on this thread they don't have to be regulated to enforce a high court order. Which is news to me and as I said to you in an earlier reply it should have oversight and regulation.

Again what type of person is acceptable for this type of job? I suspect none are.

It certainly should. The idiot in KBC who gave this direction should be fired. This eviction was probably never going to go well. To say they managed to piss off everyone would be an understatement.

How comfortable do you think the individual members of AGS feel supporting what some might regard as shady operators ? Any local due diligence ?

You will have all kinds of Civil Liberties groups up in arms now. As it is we have no National Security Office. We have no oversight of state security and no oversight even when it comes down to PSA licensing of security firms engaged in repossessing properties on behalf of banks etc

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

You can count me in to join the folks who want to stop the thugs from NI if the decide to send them again.
I don't get involved in these things ever but thugs have to be stopped so I'll join the locals if they want my assistance.

Yet another keyboard warrior.

simongurnick

[Deleted User] wrote: »

every country in the world had the auditors in runnings things for years after did they

must have missed that

yer middle name...wouldnt be paddy be any chance

So Ireland was the only one?

gandalf

eagle eye wrote: »

You can count me in to join the folks who want to stop the thugs from NI if the decide to send them again.
I don't get involved in these things ever but thugs have to be stopped so I'll join the locals if they want my assistance.

But the "locals" are thugs as well. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And if the sub contractors aren't from NI is that ok then from your perspective?

blueythebear

blueythebear wrote: »

A bailout from the Belgian parent company which itself was bailed out by the Belgian Government 9 years ago...how is this fact relevant ? A Belgian bank did not tank the Irish economy

wow

ok, i`ll need to go a step back for you. I`ll do it, but just for you.
The were lending irresponsibly, they would not have gone bust if they were lending responsibly. Their Irish arm were making a loss due to this.

They would not have needed a bailout if they lent responsibly. People wouldnt be being evicted if they had of lent responsibly.

MrMusician18

eagle eye wrote: »

You can count me in to join the folks who want to stop the thugs from NI if the decide to send them again.
I don't get involved in these things ever but thugs have to be stopped so I'll join the locals if they want my assistance.

Where the banks enforcers are from is really beside the point. The debtor defaulted on the debt and a high court order was sought and obtained. The debtors should have vacated the property at that point but didn't. When asking nicely didn't work, what was the bank to do?