Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

Fann Linn

Nixonbot wrote: »

By "forgotten" do you mean "2nd biggest story on the Indo front page"?

I don't bother with fashion mags.

tipptom

Andycap8 wrote: »

But that's how the countryside operates.
Low levels of education.
Basically they're just farmers or little retailers eking out an existence.
Gullible/highly suggestible.
Sure, Sean Quinn is a hero in Cavan :eek:
These are the folks the bots target in the US.
But instead of bots you've got the egomaniacs in the Land League, GO'D, SF/IRA splinters, Anti-Vaxers etc

Instead of a United Ireland, could would there be much support for us donating certain midlands and border counties to the North? :cool:

What a brave little Celtic tiger boy you are mouthing from behind your computer.

Come over from the property threads to insult country people,shop keepers and farmers.

pablo128

tipptom wrote: »

What a brave little Celtic tiger boy you are mouthing from behind your computer.

Come over from the property threads to insult country people,shop keepers and farmers.

You've some neck accusing others of insulting people. You called someone an idiot in your previous post.

tipptom

tipptom wrote: »

What a brave little Celtic tiger boy you are mouthing from behind your computer.

of the many shortcomings evident in yr rhetorical apparatus based on yr recent contributions, we can omit irony anyway buck

tipptom

eagle eye wrote: »

How many are supporting the man in this thread. The majority are from this saying they can't believe that people are backing and defending him.
The fact that northern thugs where brought down to remove them is my gripe. The fact that a retired Garda was assaulted by them is another reason why I'm not happy about this.
I think most people talking about this in here are very annoyed that these thugs were brought down from the north.
Please don't mistake that as defending a man not paying him debts.

Your wasting your time.

They just ignore that so they can carry on their little fap fest with three or four mods joining in with them at various stages to cream themselves and letting idiots accussing all people from the country of low education.

joe40

Andycap8 wrote: »

Mr.Fantastic wrote: »

It really irks me that there is so much support for this man, who willingly neglected his debts.

This is not a family struggling to keep a house over their head, with no other alternative to pay for debt accrued.

Its bizzare.

But that's how the countryside operates.
Low levels of education.
Basically they're just farmers or little retailers eking out an existence.
Gullible/highly suggestible.
Sure, Sean Quinn is a hero in Cavan :eek:
These are the folks the bots target in the US.
But instead of bots you've got the egomaniacs in the Land League, GO'D, SF/IRA splinters, Anti-Vaxers etc

Instead of a United Ireland, could would there be much support for us donating certain midlands and border counties to the North? :cool:

There is a discussion to be had in relation to the nature of evictions and how they are carried out but hateful comments like above are just offensive rubbish.

I would agree that the farmers in this case aren't particularly in need of sympathy considering tax defaults etc. But there are wider implications going forward. Some people do deserve to be evicted but there are genuine hardships out there.
This process needs to be better regulated I think that is self evident.
But then again what would I know been an ignorant hick from a border county.

tipptom

tipptom wrote: »

Your wasting your time.

They just ignore that so they can carry on their little fap fest with three or four mods joining in with them at various stages to cream themselves and letting idiots accussing all people from the country of low education.

whats "from the country"

we're 'accussing' people who seem to struggle with concepts trickier than "i dont want to pay for stuff" and "me and mine first and fcuk the rest" of limited intellectual scope, i suppose

country origins and education aren't a factor, unless you claim it is.

edit: just seeing the quote again that joe40 has posted and point taken that's a sweeping negative statement of exactly the type noted.

hardly the first sweeping negative statement in the thread and hardly the worst, but i wouldnt agree with it meself

Skylinehead

Fann Linn wrote: »

I don't bother with fashion mags.

Doesn't get much more mainstream than then, regardless of your reading choices.

Your point was bollix

AudreyHepburn

I might be missing something here but what’s so wrong about someone refusing to pay their debts having their assets taken from them?

I understand that people fall on hard times but by the sounds of things in this situation the bank tried to engage with the homeowner and did not succeed. How can anyone expect them to turn a blind eye to someone refusing to engage?

And as for the thugs that got involved after the fact - they should be ashamed of themselves.

Let’s stop fooling ourselves that the uproar over what happened is anything more than a refusal by a certain section of society to accept that you can’t have everything for free in this life and you can’t just refuse to pay your debts and get away with it.

Feisar

tipptom wrote: »

Your wasting your time.

They just ignore that so they can carry on their little fap fest with three or four mods joining in with them at various stages to cream themselves and letting idiots accussing all people from the country of low education.

Is fap fest like Octoberfest except with fapping? If so, count me in!

gandalf

joe40 wrote: »

I would agree that the farmers in this case aren't particularly in need of sympathy considering tax defaults etc. But there are wider implications going forward. Some people do deserve to be evicted but there are genuine hardships out there.
This process needs to be better regulated I think that is self evident.
But then again what would I know been an ignorant hick from a border county.

TBH you're right I am worried about the implications for those that are in genuine distress. These guys aren't and the sort of hysterics that has occurred over this will push the banks to dump all their problem loans to vulture funds and then those who have genuine reasons for their difficulties will be fecked.

Re processions of property where the debtors have no intention of servicing the debt at all should be streamlined and rather than dragging on for years it should take a year max. It was probably obvious early on that the chancer in Strokestown was gaming the system. Then there should be obligations put in place so banks have to help those with genuine reasons for not being able to meet their payments but who are engaging with the bank to find a solution. They also need to separate the residence from the rest of the farm so in the worst case scenario the farm is lost but the residence is retained.

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

And they refused to walk away, which in turn led to them being forceably removed.
Brought on themselves

i agree they brought the repossession and eviction on themselves yes but i don't agree they brought the behaviour toards them by those so called security carying out the eviction on themselves, behaviour which had no justification and which in my view went beyond anything reasonable.

BattleCorp wrote: »

And if they left the property peacefully (lawfully) before or when the sheriff/security people showed up, then there would have been no hassle with the security people.

that's just whataboutery in my view. unless we were talking about the gardai or another separate actual state agency, using force and removing someone from a house, for which i would then agree with your point, as they would be an actual authority of the state.

tipptom

pablo128 wrote: »

You've some neck accusing others of insulting people. You called someone an idiot in your previous post.

Have you actually read what people are saying about the people from around this area and the general population of the countryside on this thread??

You the smart boy who earlier in the thread was talking about it being no harm if this familys house which is in the family for generations got burned down it would be no harm because of the state of it?

This man should be evicted but the way the usual fap mob on here with their loyalist friends backed up by all the mods that's posting are going on as if he was FU*cing Fred West or something.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

i agree they brought the repossession and eviction on themselves yes but i don't agree they brought the behaviour toards them by those so called security carying out the eviction on themselves, behaviour which had no justification and which in my view went beyond anything reasonable.

what behaviour

removal from an illegally-occupied property?

if you cannot prove anything more than this you ought to stop repeating it as a problem.

nb it doesnt matter if you think the gardaí should be doing it. you dont need to repeat that any more either, really

gandalf

end of the road wrote: »

i agree they brought the repossession and eviction on themselves yes but i don't agree they brought the behaviour toards them by those so called security carying out the eviction on themselves, behaviour which had no justification and which in my view went beyond anything reasonable.

Have you watched the video? I don't see anything unreasonable in it at all. The guys refused to leave a property that was no longer theirs. They were removed. They resisted so it got a bit rough.

that's just whataboutery in my view. unless we were talking about the gardai or another separate actual state agency, using force and removing someone from a house, for which i would then agree with your point, as they would be an actual authority of the state.

Given we haven't enough Gardai to cover the country properly I don't believe that we should have a new force with additional costs. I think the banks need to make a concerted effort to flush out all these bad loans where the debtors are not engaging or paying anything.

Hopefully with more stringent rules around lending and splitting the residence from the business side we will see less of these kind of evictions.

tipptom

facehugger99 wrote: »

The guy evicted was a criminal, it's not surprising he knew other 'good republican' criminals. Birds of a feather flock together and scumbags seldom differ.

Be a good little loyalist fap boy lad and post up your evidence of this.

Water John

Correct Gandalf, different cases deserve different remedies. Take a young couple who put together a deposit and get a mortgage. Then, illness strikes or one is let go from a well paying position whatever and they fall behind on repayments. It was never their intention to default but sh*t happens.
This is a different kettle of fish, but the main residence should be separate from the business. All business and property owners should be aware of that.

pablo128

tipptom wrote: »

Have you actually read what people are saying about the people from around this area and the general population of the countryside on this thread??

You the smart boy who earlier in the thread was talking about it being no harm if this familys house which is in the family for generations got burned down it would be no harm because of the state of it?

This man should be evicted but the way the usual fap mob on here with their loyalist friends backed up by all the mods that's posting are going on as if he was FU*cing Fred West or something.

Yeah it was alright when it was suggested the locals would burn the new owner out, and then burn a new home out afterwards. I didn't hear a peep out of you then.

It is against the charter to abuse other posters. You're supposed to attack the post and not the poster.

By the way it's not that family's home anymore. Cabot own it now.

tipptom

EagererBeaver wrote: »

A five pint Provo if ever there was one.

Where in my post do I mention provos.

You think you have to be a provo to get attention from this scum?

tipptom

tipptom wrote: »

Have you actually read what people are saying about the people from around this area and the general population of the countryside on this thread??

You the smart boy who earlier in the thread was talking about it being no harm if this familys house which is in the family for generations got burned down it would be no harm because of the state of it?

This man should be evicted but the way the usual fap mob on here with their loyalist friends backed up by all the mods that's posting are going on as if he was FU*cing Fred West or something.

So what is your issue then?
Just that some nordies got a job down south?

cameramonkey

pablo128 wrote: »

Yeah it was alright when it was suggested the locals would burn the new owner out, and then burn a new home out afterwards. I didn't hear a peep out of you then.

It is against the charter to abuse other posters. You're supposed to attack the post and not the poster.

By the way it's not that family's home anymore. Cabot own it now.

Who in the locality suggested burning out new owners? have you a link to that?

Timberrrrrrrr

end of the road wrote: »

i agree they brought the repossession and eviction on themselves yes but i don't agree they brought the behaviour toards them by those so called security carying out the eviction on themselves, behaviour which had no justification and which in my view went beyond anything reasonable.



that's just whataboutery in my view. unless we were talking about the gardai or another separate actual state agency, using force and removing someone from a house, for which i would then agree with your point, as they would be an actual authority of the state.

You wanted protesters (men women and children) baton charged if they attempted to stop a Garth Brookes concert:rolleyes:

facehugger99

tipptom wrote: »

Be a good little loyalist fap boy lad and post up your evidence of this.

Tom, you've wet yourself again.

Time to go home.

pablo128

cameramonkey wrote: »

Who in the locality suggested burning out new owners? have you a link to that?

I said it was suggested that the locals would burn out the new owners. Don't try to twist my words.
Post #94 and post #105 of this thread.

mynamejeff

end of the road wrote: »

i agree they brought the repossession and eviction on themselves yes but i don't agree they brought the behaviour toards them by those so called security carying out the eviction on themselves, behaviour which had no justification and which in my view went beyond anything reasonable.



that's just whataboutery in my view. unless we were talking about the gardai or another separate actual state agency, using force and removing someone from a house, for which i would then agree with your point, as they would be an actual authority of the state.

so given that the correct process in law was carried out , possession orders eviction orders etc were sough through relevant courts , notices were served time was allowed etc and the occupants refused to leave the property now belonging to some one else how should they be removed ?

reasonable force when required is allowed inside the law. while not nice to watch is inside the remit of bailiffs and sheriffs in Ireland today.

and dont demand links do your own damn research

mynamejeff

facehugger99 wrote: »

Tom, you've wet yourself again.

Time to go home.

aw remember the good old days when he used to be waterfordtom ?

the_syco

joe40 wrote: »

But there are wider implications going forward. Some people do deserve to be evicted but there are genuine hardships out there.

Anyone with hardships in Strokestown will be treated the same.

As chancers.

=-=

If sheriffs evicted the trio, would the trio have stayed out of their house after being evicted, or would they have just gone back in, as they have done?

Lefty Bicek

Originally Posted by Billcarson
The simple fact is that it is getting tougher and tougher to make ends meet for many people in this country not all but many If you can't see that well I don't know what planet your living on.

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, things are getting worse, despite disposable income going up.

https://www.joe.ie/news/average-weekly-disposable-income-ireland-652097

Facts, eh? Pesky things.

You over-estimate your cleverness.

The true picture reveals that Billcarson is absolutely spot-on in what he says.

Latest release of the CSO Household Budget Survey is 27/3/18, for the period 2015/16.

Refer yourself to fig. 2.5, and the following -

The average weekly disposable income for households in the sixth highest income deciles (i.e. those with a gross weekly income in excess of €700.70) exceeded expenditure. On the other hand, households in the remaining deciles (the four lowest) recorded higher expenditure than disposable income

So, of ten deciles, four of them have households with recorded higher expenditure than disposable income.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hbs/hbs20152016/hinc/

Four out of ten is exactly as the Billcarson said, 'not all... but many'.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Pesky things, eh ?

tipptom

facehugger99 wrote: »

Tom, you've wet yourself again.

Time to go home.

So Ill take it you have no evidence then little drummer boy??

end of the road

gandalf wrote: »

Have you watched the video? I don't see anything unreasonable in it at all. The guys refused to leave a property that was no longer theirs. They were removed. They resisted so it got a bit rough.

i have watched it yes hence why i came to the conclusion i did.
the fact they supposibly "resisted" doesn't matter to me as they weren't resisting arrest or the gardai moving them on which would be a different story as the gardai are the authority of the state unlike this lot.

gandalf wrote: »

Given we haven't enough Gardai to cover the country properly I don't believe that we should have a new force with additional costs.

of course we should. we should be funding the gardai, and if they aren't going to be enforcers of civil law, another force along the same lines to enforce civil law. either way, private companies as enforcers is not exceptible to me and they have no place in enforcing the law.

gandalf wrote: »

I think the banks need to make a concerted effort to flush out all these bad loans where the debtors are not engaging or paying anything.

Hopefully with more stringent rules around lending and splitting the residence from the business side we will see less of these kind of evictions.

i would agree with that.

KERSPLAT!

I think we can all agree that the real travesty here is the attempts at slagging from both sides

"...Little drummer boy"

What in the name of Jaysus is that supposed to mean!?

Omackeral

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You wanted protesters (men women and children) baton charged if they attempted to stop a Garth Brookes concert:rolleyes:

Chap is a hypocrite. He'd cry his eyes out if black gangs were rounded on by vigilantes. Or Travellers.

tipptom

pablo128 wrote: »

Yeah it was alright when it was suggested the locals would burn the new owner out, and then burn a new home out afterwards. I didn't hear a peep out of you then.

It is against the charter to abuse other posters. You're supposed to attack the post and not the poster.

By the way it's not that family's home anymore. Cabot own it now.

So you are admitting it was you who was sneering about this familys home being burned down would have been a good thing because of the state of it?

end of the road

Omackeral wrote: »

Chap is a hypocrite. He'd cry his eyes out if black gangs were rounded on by vigilantes. Or Travellers.

i wouldn't no, i would simply condemn it as there are remedies in place to deal with such gangs.

MrMusician18

There's a lot of information not in the public domain. Probably the most pertinent question is who actually holds the debt and it's size, and size of the land holdings it's acting as collateral for.

Even at this stage, it's unconfirmed as far as I know. We don't even know the name of the financial institution, KBC have said nothing, Cabot have denied involvement.

What we do know is that some good republicans are organising a rally in the town on Sunday.

Thatnastyboy

I just hope is that this doesn't turn into a successful recruitment drive for Freeman of the land Gilroy and his vellow yests, or tiger reborn or whatever alfies army is calling itself this week.

Lots of calls for revolution, riots, general anarchy, the burning of the Dáil, the lynching of 'that zulu vradker' etc. etc. arising from this, and it is going completely uncontested on the major forms of social media. (Contest it at your peril, I won't ever try again anyway)

However, one big thing I can see going against the yellow vests is that they're not racist enough, seems to be a bugbear for a lot of people who would like to pursue a career in protesting but also don't like the darkies.


Hoping this just blows over, maybe some optics from the government might calm the more reasonable folk attaching themselves to this...

Omackeral

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I think we can all agree that the real travesty here is the attempts at slagging from both sides

"...Little drummer boy"

What in the name of Jaysus is that supposed to mean!?

It's both festive and sectarian. I love how EOTR has thanked all the posts slagging loyalists but would throw a hissy fit if any other group were mocked. So hypocritical.

Omackeral

end of the road wrote: »

i wouldn't no, i would simply condemn it as there are remedies in place to deal with such gangs.

You didn't seem to mind these security boys get a hiding from vigilantes. Talk about "greater good" and that if memory serves.

Effects

Naos wrote: »

VAT CALCULATOR (IRELAND)

Price excluding VAT: €769,565.22
VAT(23%): €177,000
Price including VAT: €946,565.22

In order to generate €177k VAT, he would have to have billed €945k (this is open to correction).

Vat could have been at the lower 13.5%

padd b1975

Water John wrote: »

Correct Gandalf, different cases deserve different remedies. Take a young couple who put together a deposit and get a mortgage. Then, illness strikes or one is let go from a well paying position whatever and they fall behind on repayments. It was never their intention to default but sh*t happens.
This is a different kettle of fish, but the main residence should be separate from the business. All business and property owners should be aware of that.

They should indeed.

However, this sham's credit rating is not exactly AAA, so I suspect he may have used his property as security in order to borrow.

He's very much at the end of the road on all fronts now though, no doubt about that.

KERSPLAT!

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There's a lot of information not in the public domain. Probably the most pertinent question is who actually holds the debt and it's size, and size of the land holdings it's acting as collateral for. Who are these people and what do they do?

Even at this stage, it's unconfirmed as far as I know. We don't even know the name of the financial institution, KBC have said nothing, Cabot have denied involvement.

What we do know is that some good republicans are organising a rally in the town on Sunday.

According to Today FM there was a high court order, no other detail matters really. They've been ordered out, they should leave the property. I don't condone the alleged actions of the security crowd, I haven't looked into it much, but you can be sure they were asked to leave before they were removed.

Awful situation for all involved.

tipptom

tipptom wrote: »

Nope,just Loyalist scum.

And you of course know that how?
If they were republican nordies would that be OK to you?

zapitastas

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No other security company, certainly not one from the republic, will do this kind of work because of the neanderthal response this eviction and others like it got. Who would want their face plastered all over FB with people asking for their names and addresses to be made public?

A large part of the response is because of the company. Believe it or not there are sheriff's and their deputies that go about this business quietly and professionally all the time. This is what happens when you bring in a bunch of thugs

mikeym

facehugger99 wrote: »

The guy evicted was a criminal, it's not surprising he knew other 'good republican' criminals. Birds of a feather flock together and scumbags seldom differ.

Proof????

gctest50

zapitastas wrote: »

A large part of the response is because of the company. Believe it or not there are sheriff's and their deputies that go about this business quietly and professionally all the time. This is what happens when you bring in a bunch of thugs

Whichever bank/company/whatever have to show they tried ( and use it as a "learning experience" * )

then it'll just be court again like so :


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/farmer-agrees-to-surrender-50-acres-to-receiver-1.3735947?mode=amp

Mr Morrin appeared before Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds after she ruled last week she was “satisfied beyond reasonable doubt” he had breached orders made by the High Court in July 2017.

In her judgment last Friday, she also dismissed applications by Mr Morrin of Poplar Square, Naas, Co Kildare, to have the receiver’s case thrown out on grounds it was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. She also refused Mr Morrin’s application for orders preventing Mr Kavanagh and his agents from trespassing on his property.

then Gilroy and similar oleaginous parasites will slink off into the dark


* if the guys from North of the border with the bodycams have half a brain they'll be selling the footage to the ruc/mi5 or whoever will pay. Nice Christmas bonus

mikeym

Its ok everyone the family have moved back in

Maybe they might come to an arrangement and come up with a repayment plan.

pablo128

tipptom wrote: »

So you are admitting it was you who was sneering about this familys home being burned down would have been a good thing because of the state of it?

Again, there wasn't a peep out of you when the poster suggested the locals would burn 2 houses down because they were a bit salty about their neighbour being rightfully evicted. Silence.

Did I suggest damaging any property?

cameramonkey

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

According to Today FM there was a high court order, no other detail matters really. They've been ordered out, they should leave the property. .

What did the high court order say?

jmayo

Geuze wrote: »

People "eking out an existence" aren't collecting 177,000 VAT on sales.

Substantial business people are charging 177,000 VAT on sales.

The scale of the sheds in the aerial footage suggests a large operation.

What business was this guy in because as sure as hell he wasn't just a normal farmer ?
Was he in constrcution, hence the quarry debts or was he by any chance a bit of a cattle dealer ?

This guy has left a trail of debts for decades so as sure as fook he has done little guys when he is willing to stiff revenue.

I would be interested to know about the real truth.

I wonder how many of his neighbours feel pressured into appearing to back the family ?

These types are all over the country I have found.
And it is in their nature to always try to be the cute hoor and as they say "get a bargain", which really means screw someone over.

They are the type that you never lend anything to because you have to always go look for it back and it would probably be fecked.
Also these types were not immune from pulling strokes like adding the likes of lard to the milk to try up the butter fat content.

And the real rub is the siblings could be grand, it might just be the fecker himself that is the chancer.

Also interesting that AGS believe that a cattle smuggling criminal outfit were involved or gave the go ahead for the vigilante attack the other night.

gctest50

jmayo wrote: »

......

Also interesting that AGS believe that a cattle smuggling criminal outfit were involved or gave the go ahead for the vigilante attack the other night.

Well the gardai know a lot more now, it was like a who's who

all about teh big datas now

Since he is a slimy individual, he may have "taken the Queens' shilling" ( or the garda euro) to let it escalate as much as possible and drag well meaning ( and good hearted ) ira or whoever out of the woodwork