Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

Cupatae

gandalf wrote: »

So you condone violence then to protect a defaulter debtor who has also defrauded the Revenue and therefore us as taxpayers in this country. As someone has posted getting a repossession order is a long drawn out process that typically takes years to deliver.

It's the ilk of this individual that is denying revenue for services that a lot of his defenders on this thread are whinging about being underfunded. It's about time of lot of you actually grew up and joined the real world.

They used voilence first and by the looks of it enjoyed it the lad that said he was "British" seemed to be fairly smug..

All i know is i could never condone throwing someone by force from there home, 2 weeks before Christmas, let alone older people..

Ya I guess there is something wrong with my ilk of people!

Thatnastyboy

gandalf wrote: »

The irony is the Belgian taxpayers bailed out KBC bank :rolleyes:

Facts have no place in the discussions of today sir.

BattleCorp

Billcarson wrote: »

Your wasting your time in talking to most in this thread. They are a disgrace to this country with their pro establishment bs. We are supposed to keep our heads down and bow and smile to our masters . They can't get it into their heads that people are unhappy with the way this country is run. Granted i don't have all the answers myself but anything has to be better then keeping the status quo. But sure fg and ff have been doing so well this last nearly hundred yrs. What happened in roscommon disgusted many but this thread is full of know it alls who are afraid of any change.

Billcarson everybody.

He reckons that bills don't have to be paid. Mortgages don't have to be paid.

He doesn't have all the answers but sure he knows he is right.

Billcarson

Billcarson wrote: »

anything has to be better then keeping the status quo.

OK.

Guy:Incognito

Billcarson wrote: »

Your wasting your time in talking to most in this thread. They are a disgrace to this country with their pro establishment bs. We are supposed to keep our heads down and bow and smile to our masters . They can't get it into their heads that people are unhappy with the way this country is run. Granted i don't have all the answers myself but anything has to be better then keeping the status quo. But sure fg and ff have been doing so well this last nearly hundred yrs. What happened in roscommon disgusted many but this thread is full of know it alls who are afraid of any change.

You really are talking some ****.

What has a man not paying his tax, his loans or his bills to a local company got to do with how the country is run and why is making him out to be some sort of hero a good thing?

The status quo? The principle of pay back people you borrow from is a basic part of a functioning society.

fryup

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Is it right for a person who does not repay their debts to enjoy items for which they don’t pay, no.

and therein lies the crux of the matter,

but try telling that to those SF knuckleheads

stevielink

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

My opinion is that every bar, club and shop in the country is legally entity to throw people out of their premises as they do every day of the week.

You're the one saying it's illegal, so go check it.

Which is more likely?

i think you're missing the point entirely.
this wasnt a bar or a club or whatever.
it was in the front lawn of a house beside the gate, 2 feet from 2 Guards who I believe should have intervened. I would love to know whether their management believed they should have intervened.


edit: and yes i do believe a bar owner should have the right to remove someone from their bar. but does the law say they are aloowed to do so? Would a civil and or criminal case go in their favour if it came to that?

Guy:Incognito

Cupatae wrote: »

They used voilence first and by the looks of it enjoyed it the lad that said he was "British" seemed to be fairly smug..

All i know is i could never condone throwing someone by force from there home, 2 weeks before Christmas, let alone older people..

Ya I guess there is something wrong with my ilk of people!

Violence first? So the first these people knew of any issue with their loan was last week when the bank arrived at their door with a court order?

Geuze

Billcarson wrote: »

Your wasting your time in talking to most in this thread. They are a disgrace to this country with their pro establishment bs. We are supposed to keep our heads down and bow and smile to our masters . They can't get it into their heads that people are unhappy with the way this country is run. Granted i don't have all the answers myself but anything has to be better then keeping the status quo. But sure fg and ff have been doing so well this last nearly hundred yrs. What happened in roscommon disgusted many but this thread is full of know it alls who are afraid of any change.

I am unhappy with the way things are run.

I am not afraid of change, I want change.

I want tax evaders dealt with swiftly, and if that means seizing their assets against their will, I want that to happen.

I want all arrears cases dealt with within 24 months.

I don't want 7 years to pass until assets are repossessed.

Thatnastyboy

Cupatae wrote: »

They used voilence first and by the looks of it enjoyed it the lad that said he was "British" seemed to be fairly smug..

All i know is i could never condone throwing someone by force from there home, 2 weeks before Christmas, let alone older people..

Ya I guess there is something wrong with my ilk of people!

It's also 3 months before Paddys day.

C*nts they are.

BattleCorp

stevielink wrote: »

i think you're missing the point entirely.
this wasnt a bar or a club or whatever.
it was in the front lawn of a house beside the gate, 2 feet from 2 Guards who I believe should have intervened. I would love to know whether their management believed they should have intervened.

Bars throw you out onto the street. They don't throw you out into their beer garden.

Someone on the front lawn of the house is still on the property. Ergo they were thrown out onto the street.

gandalf

stevielink wrote: »

The people at the scene claim the person was assaulted. That's what I have to go on. No one has come out to say he wasn't assaulted. I would just like Garda management to clarify. I don't see that as being a problem.

I read in some reports that there are two incidents being investigated to do with the eviction on Tuesday.

Guy:Incognito

stevielink wrote: »

i think you're missing the point entirely.
this wasnt a bar or a club or whatever.
it was in the front lawn of a house beside the gate, 2 feet from 2 Guards who I believe should have intervened. I would love to know whether their management believed they should have intervened.

You believing something has no basis in law. So unless you're going to actually quote a law, you're just talking crap.

Cupatae

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You really are talking some ****.

What has a man not paying his tax, his loans or his bills to a local company got to do with how the country is run and why is making him out to be some sort of hero a good thing?

The status quo? The principle of pay back people you borrow from is a basic part of a functioning society.

You re like a robot man, worried about nothing but banks and revenue, i wonder if it was your family on the receiving end would you be so understanding. I highly doubt it, im glad the majority of people dont share your point of view.

Billcarson

BattleCorp wrote: »

Billcarson everybody.

He reckons that bills don't have to be paid. Mortgages don't have to be paid.

He doesn't have all the answers but sure he knows he is right.

So all the people who are disgusted by what happened are wrong . Did i say bills don't have to be paid?? Did I? Well did i???
I will bow to your better knowledge then? We will keep the country as it is. Sure fg and ff have all the answers don't they??

stevielink

gandalf wrote: »

I read in some reports that there are two incidents being investigated to do with the eviction on Tuesday.

well then hopefully we'll find out the truth

amcalester

stevielink wrote: »

The people at the scene claim the person was assaulted. That's what I have to go on. No one has come out to say he wasn't assaulted. I would just like Garda management to clarify. I don't see that as being a problem.

Confirm what? That an assault did or did not take place or confirm that it is legal to forcefully remove someone from a premises?

SoupyNorman

Billcarson wrote: »

Your wasting your time in talking to most in this thread. They are a disgrace to this country with their pro establishment bs. We are supposed to keep our heads down and bow and smile to our masters . They can't get it into their heads that people are unhappy with the way this country is run. Granted i don't have all the answers myself but anything has to be better then keeping the status quo. But sure fg and ff have been doing so well this last nearly hundred yrs. What happened in roscommon disgusted many but this thread is full of know it alls who are afraid of any change.

Whats the other option? Let the left in and the place would descend into mayhem.

You say everyone is so unhappy but each time we go to the polls the Left struggle to get elected, even lose seats. If people are so unhappy…why do they keep electing the ‘establishment’?

I mean, look at how abysmal Shane Ross has been when finally handed a bit of power. He was nothing but a cage rattler as many of the other choices are.

Simple_Simone

Billcarson wrote: »

What happened in roscommon disgusted many

Presumably you mean the actions of (a) the parasites who wouldn't pay their debts and (b) the dog-murdering vigilante scum?

stevielink

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You believing something has no basis in law. So unless you're going to actually quote a law, you're just talking crap.

funny how I had this conversation earlier today at work with a group of people with differing opinions. none of them resulted in the other saying they were talking crap. That's how a discussion works in the real world. We all chatted calmly about it. Odd how a screen changes that

stevielink

amcalester wrote: »

Confirm what? That an assault did or did not take place or confirm that it is legal to forcefully remove someone from a premises?

as my earlier posts stated, i would love if Garda management clarified whether their officers were right to do nothing.

Cupatae

BattleCorp wrote: »

Billcarson everybody.

He reckons that bills don't have to be paid. Mortgages don't have to be paid.

He doesn't have all the answers but sure he knows he is right.

I doubt he is saying that but looking for a better way, to resolve things when they go wrong, whats with the hysterical over the top reply to take what his saying out of context?

BattleCorp

Billcarson wrote: »

So all the people who are disgusted by what happened are wrong . Did i say bills don't have to be paid?? Did I? Well did i???
I will bow to your better knowledge then? We will keep the country as it is. Sure fg and ff have all the answers don't they??

Some people are disgusted by what happened. Some are not. You'll never please everybody.

That aside, the people in the house were there illegally. There was a court order for them to go. They wouldn't go peacefully. If they had left the property peacefully, none of this would have happened.

Do I like the fact that a Northern firm with loyalist links threw them out, no. I'm not mad about that fact.

But someone had to throw them out because otherwise they would have stayed in the property. And that can't be allowed to happen. If there are no evictions, most people won't bother paying their mortgage. Why should they if they know there'll be no consequences.

Just as a matter of interest, what do you think should have happened in this case?

amcalester

stevielink wrote: »

as my earlier posts stated, i would love if Garda management clarified whether their officers were right to do nothing.

They won't. Someone posted that they are investigating 2 incidents so any statement issued could negatively impact on those investigations.

gandalf

Cupatae wrote: »

They used voilence first and by the looks of it enjoyed it the lad that said he was "British" seemed to be fairly smug..

All i know is i could never condone throwing someone by force from there home, 2 weeks before Christmas, let alone older people..

Ya I guess there is something wrong with my ilk of people!

How would you remove people from a property they were no longer the official owners of and refused to leave?

As stated this is the end of a very long process that had to be followed. When would have been ideal 2nd of Jan? As for older people that bull**** has been debunked already.

Yep there is someone really deluded about people who think individuals should be allowed to obtain loans and then renege on repaying them.

stevielink

amcalester wrote: »

They won't. Someone posted that they are investigating 2 incidents so any statement issued could negatively impact on those investigations.

yeah i realise that now and hopefully it will be clarified by the investigation at some point

relax carry on

Billcarson wrote: »

Your wasting your time in talking to most in this thread. They are a disgrace to this country with their pro establishment bs. We are supposed to keep our heads down and bow and smile to our masters . They can't get it into their heads that people are unhappy with the way this country is run. Granted i don't have all the answers myself but anything has to be better then keeping the status quo. But sure fg and ff have been doing so well this last nearly hundred yrs. What happened in roscommon disgusted many but this thread is full of know it alls who are afraid of any change.

I think the problem most people have here with those who seem to disagree with the eviction is it seems to be a case of emotions/options versus facts. Unfortunately the facts of the case appear to be a debt or debts were owed and the people who owed the debt do not appear to have engaged sufficiently with the lender to avoid repossession as borne out in the granting of the court order. It's already been pointed out that the repossession process is a long drawn out one with multiple opertunities for meaningful negotiation.
In order to get to the court order stage all avenues would have to be exhausted.

If you accept the repossession and eviction was lawful then you are left with how it was carried out. If there was anything unlawful in the way it was carried out then please provide some facts in relation to it not emotive statements or opinions. If the people evicted have complaints about how the eviction was handled then they can seek the services of a solicitor like everyone else. They could even make a complaint to and about the guards if they wish. However these avenues would have to be fact based.

To be honest this whole case highlights the rather large downside to social media which basically seems to replicate and amplify a drunken pub rant into what passes for news and informed discussion.

BattleCorp

Cupatae wrote: »

I doubt he is saying that but looking for a better way, to resolve things when they go wrong, whats with the hysterical over the top reply to take what his saying out of context?

To be fair, if I was hysterical, I wasn't the only one. Blaming FF/FG for someone not paying their mortgage and holding that line is fairly over the top in my opinion.

Guy:Incognito

stevielink wrote: »

funny how I had this conversation earlier today at work with a group of people with differing opinions. none of them resulted in the other saying they were talking crap. That's how a discussion works in the real world. We all chatted calmly about it. Odd how a screen changes that

That's what happens when you work in a crèche and try to discuss things with 3 year olds.

Seriously, look at your posts. "I may be wrong but I believe this........" and variations on it. If you think you may be wrong, go bloody educate yourself.

The laws are set out fairly well. They have them in books and on the Internet. Its all there for you to check.

Cupatae

gandalf wrote: »

How would you remove people from a property they were no longer the official owners of and refused to leave?

As stated this is the end of a very long process that had to be followed. When would have been ideal 2nd of Jan? As for older people that bull**** has been debunked already.

Yep there is someone really deluded about people who think individuals should be allowed to obtain loans and then renege on repaying them.

Did they not try to pay? i believe they were willing to pay 1000 a month according to the article.

Billcarson

BattleCorp wrote: »

Some people are disgusted by what happened. Some are not. You'll never please everybody.

That aside, the people in the house were there illegally. There was a court order for them to go. They wouldn't go peacefully. If they had left the property peacefully, none of this would have happened.

Do I like the fact that a Northern firm with loyalist links threw them out, no. I'm not mad about that fact.

But someone had to throw them out because otherwise they would have stayed in the property. And that can't be allowed to happen. If there are no evictions, most people won't bother paying their mortgage. Why should they if they know there'll be no consequences.

Just as a matter of interest, what do you think should have happened in this case?

Well for starters not getting thugs down from the north. Surely the bank could have come to some agreement. Im not condoning people not paying debt. Me and my wife work to to pay debts etc as most people do.

BattleCorp

Cupatae wrote: »

Did they not try to pay? i believe they were willing to pay 1000 a month according to the article.

How much was owed?

€1000 per month might not cover the interest on the mortgage for all we know.

Guy:Incognito

stevielink wrote: »

as my earlier posts stated, i would love if Garda management clarified whether their officers were right to do nothing.

Did you ask them or should they just know you have questions and come looking for you?

stevielink

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

That's what happens when you work in a crèche and try to discuss things with 3 year olds.

Seriously, look at your posts. "I may be wrong but I believe this........" and variations on it. If you think you may be wrong, go bloody educate yourself.

yep, i suppose it's the response i expected.

why discuss something online if you don't want to actually discuss it rationally?
i have an opinion, you have an opinion. we discuss.
i have a question, someone has the answer, we discuss.
i say my thoughts (which of course can be wrong), someone else gives their thoughts. we discuss.

if i knew the answer i wouldnt need a discussion.
if we all just went and googled stuff, sure why do we have a discussion forum?

jmayo

Billcarson wrote: »

Your wasting your time in talking to most in this thread. They are a disgrace to this country with their pro establishment bs. We are supposed to keep our heads down and bow and smile to our masters . They can't get it into their heads that people are unhappy with the way this country is run. Granted i don't have all the answers myself but anything has to be better then keeping the status quo. But sure fg and ff have been doing so well this last nearly hundred yrs. What happened in roscommon disgusted many but this thread is full of know it alls who are afraid of any change.

Bravo.
Spoken like a true cute hoor apologist.
Shure it's the system, down with the system. :rolleyes:

I do want change, I am unhappy they way the country is run.
I agree with the poster that says they want revamp of how bad debts are handled so that shysters can't walk away from them.

I am also unhappy how many taxes are wasted trying to educate some people.
I guess cop on is not something you can teach.

Lets be honest here, you don't have any answers.

BTW the status quo probably keeps a lot of people with your mindset in a quality of life that they don't fooking deserve.

EDIT: I see you said that you and your wife work to pay your debts.
Well then how in fook can you stand behind someone that basically p*sses all over other debtors?

gctest50

Billcarson wrote: »

Surely the bank could have come to some agreement..

They did

They got their property back by going to court

BattleCorp

Billcarson wrote: »

Well for starters not getting thugs down from the north. Surely the bank could have come to some agreement. Im not condoning people not paying debt. Me and my wife work to to pay debts etc as most people do.

The guy who had the mortgage wouldn't engage with Revenue on the tax issue. That's why the penalties equalled the tax liability.

I'd be fairly confident that he didn't engage fully with the bank either. Offering €1000 per month on the day of the eviction after years of going through the process isn't going to cut it. For all we know €1000 per month might not even cover the interest on the property.

stevielink

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Did you ask them or should they just know you have questions and come looking for you?

yep. clever one that. My direct line to Drew Harris seems to be faulty at the moment. The ongoing investigation however may uncover what actually happened and was supposed to happen

gandalf

Cupatae wrote: »

Did they not try to pay? i believe they were willing to pay 1000 a month according to the article.

But I suspect that would not be going anywhere near servicing the amount they owed.

Listen if this was just a person who got into difficulty with a simple mortgage extension to improve the farm I'd have sympathy with the guy. That is not what this is. The person in question has a judgement against him from the Revenue commissioners. Looking at the amounts involved it's clear they didn't engage with the revenue at all. Now you take from that if he didn't engage with the Revenue he definitely didn't engage with the Bank.

To get a judgement from the High Court to repossess the Bank have to show that they have made every effort to facilitate an alternative solution. Now that solution has to be realistic and allow the bank to recoup their investment or most of their investment. Obviously this was not forthcoming and based on Revenue Judgement it appears the party in question slapped his head in the sand hoping the bad people would go away.

Guy:Incognito

stevielink wrote: »

yep, i suppose it's the response i expected.

why discuss something online if you don't want to actually discuss it rationally?
i have an opinion, you have an opinion. we discuss.
i have a question, someone has the answer, we discuss.
i say my thoughts (which of course can be wrong), someone else gives their thoughts. we discuss.

if i knew the answer i wouldnt need a discussion.
if we all just went and googled stuff, sure why do we have a discussion forum?

Your opinion is that something is against the law and that the stance you're taking when refusing to actually check if it is while admitting you don't know the law.

Why won't you go and fact check your opinion? Youre already online.

Guy:Incognito

stevielink wrote: »

yep. clever one that. My direct line to Drew Harris seems to be faulty at the moment. The ongoing investigation however may uncover what actually happened and was supposed to happen

The Gardai have a twitter account. Couldn't be easier to start there and ask them.

A hypothetical law question is no issue to an ongoing investigation.

There's a legal forum here on boards. I'm sure there's a few lawyers there.

Failing all that, if you really don't want to check the books or the site yourself, pick a random lawyer and ring them for advice.

stevielink

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Your opinion is that something is against the law and that the stance you're taking when refusing to actually check if it is.

Why won't you go and fact check your opinion? Youre already online.

no. my query is whether or not security guards are allowed to manhandle physically a person or persons and whether a Garda is allowed to stand idly by.

I have been unable to find online anything specific in relation to either of these questions as to whether it is allowed or not.

As a landlord myself who had tenants overstaying by 9 months in the past, there's nothing more I would have loved to have done than to hire a security firm to physically throw them out. Even when we were legally allowed to evict them, there's no way I would have physically thrown them out, despite wanting to

gandalf

stevielink wrote: »

As a landlord myself who had tenants overstaying by 9 months in the past, there's nothing more I would have loved to have done than to hire a security firm to physically throw them out. Even when we were legally allowed to evict them, there's no way I would have physically thrown them out, despite wanting to

I suspect you would need a court order to go down that route.

Guy:Incognito

stevielink wrote: »

As a landlord myself who had tenants overstaying by 9 months in the past, there's nothing more I would have loved to have done than to hire a security firm to physically throw them out. Even when we were legally allowed to evict them, there's no way I would have physically thrown them out, despite wanting to

They didn't just hire a security firm to come kick them out . They got a court order saying they had to leave and acted on that.

This was the end of a long process. Not the beginning.

Gimme A Pound

Cupatae wrote: »

You re like a robot man, worried about nothing but banks and revenue, i wonder if it was your family on the receiving end would you be so understanding. I highly doubt it, im glad the majority of people dont share your point of view.

People who are struggling to pay their mortgage due to falling on hard times but who engage with their creditor and pay what they can... do not get evicted. People should stop buying into the populist bollox that someone who is doing their best will still get turfed out. Don't be so gullible and so determined to believe that the business is always bad and the customer is always put upon.

People who don't pay a thing, don't engage with the financial institution, and ignore REAMS of reminders, are the ones who get evicted. And when they're availing of a service but not paying towards it, something has to give.

If it was a family member, I would think the same. And do you actually know the majority of society feel the same way as you, or is it just something you want to believe?

jmayo

For any here of a farming background I bet I can offer a description of the guy at the centre of this and I bet that description will remind people of someone they know.
Hell it might be themselves.

This guy is the kind of guy that the local contractor is chasing on Christmas Eve for the money he owes him for silage cut in May and June.
There is always an excuse, milk is not paying as well or payment was delayed for some reason, the two year olds didn't make as much as he thought, he lost a few animals the last while, he had vets bills, etc.

Maybe the contractor never gets his money and so a new contractor does the work next year.
Before long no contractor in the area will touch him as word gets around.

The lads that painted his sheds don't get paid.

The lads that put in the new yard haven't been paid.

And you will always find a history for people like this when it comes to these guys paying their bills.

The only way he ended up with such high penalties from revenue was he ignored them and they thought he was taking the p***.

Why did he owe a quarry 15k?

But it seems some people actually consider this type of guy to be someone to be supported and hell even lauded for sticking it to the banks.:rolleyes:

BattleCorp

jmayo wrote: »

Why did he owe a quarry 15k?

It's all the banks and FF/FG's fault.

stevielink

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They didn't just hire a security firm to come kick them out . They got a court order saying they had to leave and acted on that.

This was the end of a long process. Not the beginning.

i know all of that. (been through some of it myself).
In my case, the tenants left themselves after 9 months however we were told that if they didnt leave the following would have to happen:
RTB termination order followed by court order, followed by engaging the services of the sheriff (though i didn't realise at the time it was the sheriff). I was told that if it came to them not leaving after all of that, the sheriff would have to get Gardai and Social services on the day of eviction. Nothing was ever mentioned to me about physically pushing them out of the property, and it was my understanding that on foot of the court order, the Guards would intervene if the sheriff couldnt talk them out.
We were thankfully nowhere near that stage, but that was how I was told it was to work.

Gimme A Pound

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's all the banks and FF/FG's fault.

And anyone not willing to swallow the bulls1t narrative is automatically in thrall to the banks apparently.

I don't give a sh1t about the banks, I give a sh1t about the truth, and about the way people who won't pay their way should be given a free pass according to some.

gandalf

stevielink wrote: »

i know all of that. (been through some of it myself).
In my case, the tenants left themselves after 9 months however we were told that if they didnt leave the following would have to happen:
RTB termination order followed by court order, followed by engaging the services of the sheriff (though i didn't realise at the time it was the sheriff). I was told that if it came to them not leaving after all of that, the sheriff would have to get Gardai and Social services on the day of eviction. Nothing was ever mentioned to me about physically pushing them out of the property, and it was my understanding that on foot of the court order, the Guards would intervene if the sheriff couldnt talk them out.
We were thankfully nowhere near that stage, but that was how I was told it was to work.

Glad it worked out for you. It must have been pretty stressful.

What surprised me with this Strokestown situation was the number that were used to evict the guys. It's obvious from the number of guys used to evict them that they expected issues and they obviously expected issues if they left 8 of them on duty guarding the farm. No commercial entity wastes resources on services unless they believe it was necessary.