Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

eagle eye

woddensanta wrote:

Sir, I am simply inferring that the people going on the sectarian diatribe are somewhat intellectually challenged, though I assume from your post that you consider unionists to be some sort of sub spices that has no business challenging even the most obvious of bigoted on their outbursts?

I may have missed some posts but we are talking about thugs here. Some people may have pointed out that they have leanings but the major point is that they are thugs.
There a lots of people in this country whosr ancestors were kicked off their land by the British and it's ingrained in their pysche. In Strokestown there were many evictions during the famine by a man who is considered in local history as the embodiment of evil.

expectationlost

some of the Hanley's are doing ok ? See the 700ac farm that the beef and milk barons are battling over https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/farm-property/see-the-700ac-farm-that-the-beef-and-milk-barons-are-battling-over-35866859.html

Omackeral

eagle eye wrote: »

They have to find a peaceful resolution and ensure that these bastards never enter this country again.

When people say they want a United Ireland, are they really saying they want all British identifying people gone off the island? Just asking.

NIMAN

Edz87 wrote: »

According to some it was the 12th of July. Bowler hats, the lot. Wicked so it was.

It seems to be that one thing, that single line "I'm British" that has blown this out of all proportion.

Without that line, I don't think this eviction would have got so much response.

blueythebear

klaaaz wrote: »

So you base your judgement that something is legal on a news reporter talking to a camera!! :rolleyes:

No. I base it on the fact that it's been brooadcast on a prominent news source and it is corroborated by other facts, in that the Gardai were present and observed the eviction. The Gardai would not have allowed this happen without a Court Order having been seen. Also, the usual procedure is that the Sheriff will carry out the Order with the Gardai observing and this tallies with what I have seen on video.

But hey, it is easier for you to simply say that you never saw any order.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote: »

You don't see Vardakar or minister Flanagan condemning that atrocious assault by unlicensed thugs who beat the pensioner to a pulp.

Who's the pensioner?

odyssey06

P_1 wrote: »

People see the word Unionist and make an automatic jump to DUP or loyalist

When you look at the DUP you have a few negative examples
1, their blocking of equal marriage and abortion rights in NI
2, their foot dragging through the Brexit process
3, the RHI scandal

When you look at loyalists you have countless negative examples

Now everyone knows that doesn't reflect your average, decent unionist but that's how people will react to the DUP and loyalists

The Republic only legalised both in last few years and I will see your RHI and raise you an SSIA and Anglo Irish Bank and Ansbacher. I seriously doubt thats what the people are thinking!

hatrickpatrick

blueythebear wrote: »

But they are supported. They get time to regain their feet from the Bank through forebearance, then through the MARPS process and the glacially slow courts process, followed by the equally slow eviction process.

All the while there is bankruptcy, personal insolvency, mortgage to rent, abhaile scheme, split mortgages, capitalisation, etc

From the day that Summons comes through your door, you would have a good two years before you are forced out with at least a year before that through the MARPS process. Three years is ample time to find employment to start repaying your mortgage.

And yet the banks were given somewhere close to seven years, fully funded by the taxpayer, during which time their executives were allowed to continue paying themselves increased bonuses year on year.

No matter how one tries to spin this, there is a double standard at play. The corporate class are treated very differently to average citizens.

Drifter50

[PHP][/PHP]

simongurnick wrote: »

not sure you have all the facts. The "security firm" in question has loyalist paramilitary links. that's the problem.

Correct, I spoke to a colleague in Belfast today who said the dogs in the street know this company has dangerous links to organised crime

theoneeyedman

Tensions brewing in the area again tonight.

The 'security firm' are back in the area... Reports saying they are stationed (blockading according to some reports) at either end of the through road where the home is situated, with up to 100 neighbours standing around the home in question. Pretty clear that these guys have no good business in this area in the dark of night, whatever the rights and wrongs of what's happened last week there is an obvious public order 'event' brewing and these lads should be moved on.

Long night ahead in Strokestown....

Omackeral

Billcarson wrote: »

100% spot on. Something the bank sympathizers on here seem to forget.

Saying someone should pay their debts/loans/mortgages/arrears/tax does not automatically make one a bank sympathiser. This is where this daft argument falls straight away.

eagle eye

Omackeral wrote:

When people say they want a United Ireland, are they really saying they want all British identifying people gone off the island? Just asking.

We'll never see a United Ireland, there has been tooucu pain and suffering in recent history for that to happen. Maybe in 100 years or so if the troubles stay gone.

Omackeral

riemann wrote: »

Please don't refer to me as sir, or Lord. I am a citizen of a Republic, with a constitution recognising all men and women as equal.

Noone gives a **** whether you are blue, black or orange.

Doubt that. In fact, it's been shown plenty on here.

hatrickpatrick

bubblypop wrote: »

And yet, you believe that Gardai should actually physically evict people.
So, drag people out of their homes?
Or, assault them, if you prefer

I don't believe in evictions full stop (or usury, for that matter, but monetary reform is a matter for another thread) but if we must have them, it should be an arm of the state which carries them out in accordance with the law. The Gardai are allowed to use reasonable force - and nothing more than reasonable force - when arresting individuals. If they do use more than reasonable force. we have GSOC to go after them and hold them accountable for it.

Private security firms should have no right to use any physical violence whatsoever under any circumstances. That should be the exclusive province of individuals working directly for the state, and subject to stringent limitations on the use of such force.

P_1

odyssey06 wrote: »

The Republic only legalised both in last few years and I will see your RHI and raise you an SSIA and Anglo Irish Bank and Ansbacher. I seriously doubt thats what the people are thinking!

A fair point!

tuxy

Drifter50 wrote: »

[PHP][/PHP]

Correct, I spoke to a colleague in Belfast today who said the dogs in the street know this company has dangerous links to organised crime

What company? I have still not heard a single person mention the name of a company. If they have been hired legitimately it will be a registered security firm.

Fr_Dougal

woddensanta wrote: »

I just flat out refuse to use the old enemies language! No oppression for me, I won't even say "what's the craic" anymore because of the "what's" and the "the"!!!

**** English. Up da Ra!!!!!

woddensanta wrote: »

**** me I am as I said I am a unionist from the north but have never been overly invested in it but by god if iv ever needed motivation to fight against the thought of a United Ireland this thread is it! God knows what would happen to my community, my children if some of the knuckle dragging mouth breathers posting here were in charge! Please, the only solid evidence so far here is that one of the men who was enforcing a irish court order identified as British! That's enough for some to go on this sectarian diatribe. I am pretty sure there is not one UK based forum that would have allowed this level of sectarianism unfold simply because an Irish man was enforcing a court order in the UK.

6/10

hatrickpatrick

Omackeral wrote: »

Saying someone should pay their debts/loans/mortgages/arrears/tax does not automatically make one a bank sympathiser. This is where this daft argument falls straight away.

Demanding that individuals pay debts to organisations which had their own debts forgiven on the foot of the Irish taxpayer does imply a hypocritical mindset, though.

mikeym

Omackeral wrote: »

When people say they want a United Ireland, are they really saying they want all British identifying people gone off the island? Just asking.

A United Ireland is a bit expensive for the tax payer at the moment.

Lefty Bicek

Omackeral wrote: »

Doubt that. In fact, it's been shown plenty on here.

The distinction you choose to ignore in the cause of comedy fail, is between 'orange' the colour, and 'Orange' the sectarian organisation.

RobbieMD

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well then what was the point of them being there? They said themselves they were there to keep the peace.

Are you telling me that if the roles had been reversed and the people being evicted had assaulted the security goons in the same manner, the Gardai would similarly have stood by and done nothing about it? Seems highly unlikely given recent events.

I wasn’t elaborating any further about what may or may not happen. Just acknowledging that not all assaults carry a power of arrest. Similarly the public order act doesn’t apply, generally, to private property. It may explain why the Gardai present didn’t arrest anyone. It’s just an observation.

blueythebear

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And yet the banks were given somewhere close to seven years, fully funded by the taxpayer, during which time their executives were allowed to continue paying themselves increased bonuses year on year.

No matter how one tries to spin this, there is a double standard at play. The corporate class are treated very differently to average citizens.

This is tiresome stuff. The Bank bailout has nothing to do with this individual who does not believe he should pay revenue, KBC Bank, the local quarry, as well as others from the Irish Times article. The simple fact is if this guy does not have to pay his debts, then why should everyone else. There has to be a consequence for willful breach of contract

Omackeral

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Demanding that individuals pay debts to organisations which had their own debts forgiven on the foot of the Irish taxpayer does imply a hypocritical mindset, though.

Does that include KBC as per this case?

Timberrrrrrrr

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't believe in evictions full stop (or usury, for that matter, but monetary reform is a matter for another thread) but if we must have them, it should be an arm of the state which carries them out in accordance with the law. The Gardai are allowed to use reasonable force - and nothing more than reasonable force - when arresting individuals. If they do use more than reasonable force. we have GSOC to go after them and hold them accountable for it.

Private security firms should have no right to use any physical violence whatsoever under any circumstances. That should be the exclusive province of individuals working directly for the state, and subject to stringent limitations on the use of such force.

So if someone starts punching younin a bar or club you would prefer to wait for the police or would you be happy for the help of the doorstaff?

Billcarson

Omackeral wrote: »

Saying someone should pay their debts/loans/mortgages/arrears/tax does not automatically make one a bank sympathiser. This is where this daft argument falls straight away.

Not saying people should not pay there debts. But there seems to be one rule for the ordinary person and another for bankers.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Demanding that individuals pay debts to organisations which had their own debts forgiven on the foot of the Irish taxpayer does imply a hypocritical mindset, though.

Did KBC bank get bailed out by the Irish taxpayer?

_Brian

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Demanding that individuals pay debts to organisations which had their own debts forgiven on the foot of the Irish taxpayer does imply a hypocritical mindset, though.

The debt in this case arises from the individuals defrauding the revenue office and refusing to pay, dragging it out until €400k plus was racked up.

As a regular tax payer I demand that it’s extracted from their property holdings and any future income they have. Why should they get a free pass when the rest of us pay up every week no matter what.

I’m well sick of this whole sympathy and support for a bunch of tax cheats who don’t give a shot about anyone.

P_1

Omackeral wrote: »

When people say they want a United Ireland, are they really saying they want all British identifying people gone off the island? Just asking.

No offence but I wouldn't want the bigoted dinosaurs of the DUP getting within an asses roar of enacting laws that would effect me

Omackeral

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

The distinction you choose to ignore in the cause of comedy fail, is between 'orange' the colour, and 'Orange' the sectarian organisation.

It's called a homonym and I used its wordplay to make a point. Probably a bit highbrow. Apologies.

hatrickpatrick

blueythebear wrote: »

The simple fact is if this guy does not have to pay his debts, then why should everyone else. There has to be a consequence for willful breach of contract

My point is that this ship has already sailed. The "this guy" in your analogy was a group of individuals and companies which did get away with defaulting on their debts and facing no consequences, but are now demanding that everyone else pay their debts to them or get kicked out of their homes. If they didn't have to - which they didn't - then why should anyone else, indeed? You've basically posed my own question without realising it.

theoneeyedman

theoneeyedman wrote: »

Tensions brewing in the area again tonight.

The 'security firm' are back in the area... Reports saying they are stationed (blockading according to some reports) at either end of the through road where the home is situated, with up to 100 neighbours standing around the home in question. Pretty clear that these guys have no good business in this area in the dark of night, whatever the rights and wrongs of what's happened last week there is an obvious public order 'event' brewing and these lads should be moved on.

Long night ahead in Strokestown....

I see this thread is more concentrated on a circle jerk of repeating the same hackneyed rants, rather than following the events in Strokestown....

Muscles Schultz

The tans are sniffing about again...

Lefty Bicek

theoneeyedman wrote: »

I see this thread is more concentrated on a circle jerk of repeating the same hackneyed rants, rather than following the events in Strokestown....

A circle jerk is the perfect place for 'theoneeyedman', no ?

Wheeliebin30

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My point is that this ship has already sailed. The "this guy" in your analogy was a group of individuals and companies which did get away with defaulting on their debts and facing no consequences, but are now demanding that everyone else pay their debts to them or get kicked out of their homes. If they didn't have to - which they didn't - then why should anyone else, indeed? You've basically posed my own question without realising it.

Have you read anything people said about money been owed to revenue????

You are deliberately ignoring these vital facts.

Omackeral

Billcarson wrote: »

Not saying people should not pay there debts. But there seems to be one rule for the ordinary person and another for bankers.

With all due respect, you've been talking absolute pony on here. What's ordinary about owing 18,000 to a fellow business man in town? Owing 6 figures in VAT? This isn't owing your ma a score. Cop on.

theoneeyedman

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

A circle jerk is the perfect place for theoneeyedman, no ?

Ah here

woddensanta

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

6/10

Oh come on, context! Context! Context! I ask anyone to read that post in the context of the thread it was posted in, you will see it was made in humour, says more about the person who went trawling my post history to find somthing to so blatantly take out of context like this, why did you do that? Was I being so unreasonable you considered it you duty to discredit me?

cameramonkey

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

But all the banks bar Anglo are paying back the money, so why should these people be let off paying money back they owe?

My understanding of the banks bailout is different.



The loans were bought at a discount to take them off the banks books. NAMA may have paid and then sold on the loans and broke even on that portion of the banks loans but the portion of the banks loans that was not discounted ended up being paid by the people of Ireland.


Correct me if I am wrong. Why should anyone pay their debts if banks dont fully do it?

Jeff2

It's strange the guards get involved if you don't pay TV licence but not if you want to live for free and not pay.

Both are going against court order.

Maybe Seamus or some can answer.

mikeym

Apparently there is a big turnout in solidarity of the former owners of the property.

The foreign security is also in the area as well as the Garda.

The former owners want privacy but they are currently on the property.

hatrickpatrick

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Have you read anything people said about money been owed to revenue????

You are deliberately ignoring these vital facts.

I don't think that has any relevance to whether a bank has the right to turf people out of their homes for not paying debts, or hige private security thugs to help them do so.

People who don't pay revenue should be arrested and tried for that. If it was the revenue who was seizing assets in response to a non payment of tax, I'd have far less to say about it. The private banking sector is rotten to its core and I have absolutely no respect nor sympathy for it.

hatrickpatrick

mikeym wrote: »

Apparently there is a big turnout in solidarity of the former owners of the property.

The foreign security is also in the area as well as the Garda.

Anything about this online? Any streams on Instagram, Twitter, YouTube etc we should be watching to keep updated?

tuxy

Jeff2 wrote: »

It's strange the guards get involved if you don't pay TV licence but not if you want to live for free and not pay.

Not too strange, there is a difference between owing money to the state and a private institution.

blueythebear

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My point is that this ship has already sailed. The "this guy" in your analogy was a group of individuals and companies which did get away with defaulting on their debts and facing no consequences, but are now demanding that everyone else pay their debts to them or get kicked out of their homes. If they didn't have to - which they didn't - then why should anyone else, indeed? You've basically posed my own question without realising it.

I haven't actually. Very few people got away scot free, unless you count bankruptcy as scot free. Many of them would have lost buy to let properties too. The perception that the rich got away with it is just that, a perception. Its simply that the rich were able to sell a few properties from the portfolio to buy time and wait for property prices to rise.

The little guy that borrowed did not have the luxury of selling off a few properties

Lefty Bicek

Omackeral wrote: »

It's called a homonym and I used its wordplay to make a point. Probably a bit highbrow. Apologies.

Apologies for finding your homonymic wordplay DULL and INGRATIATING.

Guy:Incognito

#Ireland Irish police allow 30 ‘security’ thugs from N.Ireland to violently evict 3 elderly people from their home in Roscommon on behalf of a Bank.Later that night 150 locals violently evict 8 of the ‘security’& burn all their vehicles. #FightBack 😎ðŸ‘ðŸ‘


Literally any ****e passes for fact on social media nowadays. You should see the replies too.

The odd one has a half a sentence of something vaguely containing a couple of true words. Closest one was that they owed 400k and tried to make payments but kbc said no. No mention that they would take 30 odd years to pay it off the figure they quoted with the one they didn't (1000)

hatrickpatrick

blueythebear wrote: »

I haven't actually. Very few people got away scot free, unless you count bankruptcy as scot free. Many of them would have lost buy to let properties too. The perception that the rich got away with it is just that, a perception. Its simply that the rich were able to sell a few properties from the portfolio to buy time and wait for property prices to rise.

The companies got away with it. Their executives continued being payed bonuses (on top of their already outrageous salaries) and our finance minister, who as a shareholder had a right to oppose this, stood by at the meeting and allowed it to happen.

The little guy that borrowed did not have the luxury of selling off a few properties

The little guy that borrowed got f*cked by the same people who were helped by the state. It's that simple. And it's morally abhorrent.

Jeff2

Jeff2 wrote: »

It's strange the guards get involved if you don't pay TV licence but not if you want to live for free and not pay.

Both are going against court order.

Maybe Seamus or some can answer.

When do Gardai get involved in non payment of TV licence?

hatrickpatrick

bubblypop wrote: »

When do Gardai get involved in non payment of TV licence?

When it becomes a contempt of court issue. The same way they, and not private security goons with no accountability, should be the ones to get involved when there's contempt of a court order over a repossession.

odyssey06

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The little guy that borrowed got f*cked by the same people who were helped by the state. It's that simple. And it's morally abhorrent.

Who is the little guy here??? I dont see one. I see a businessman owing tax... bank... local businesses.