Strokestown Mod Note in Post #4461

pablo128 · 13-10-2019 4:03pm

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Wow this is quite a toxic thread, do people not have an ounce of compassion anymore? I know a property developer who's in circa €1,000,000 debt with KBC and they wouldn't dare try to seize his home. Why are people siding with the banks?? How naive do you have to be to not realise that they don't care about you? You're nothing but a resource they exploit to turn a profit, at whatever the cost.

Please explain to us what would happen if everyone who took out a loan didn't pay it back.

In your own time.

pgj2015 · 13-10-2019 4:07pm

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Wow this is quite a toxic thread, do people not have an ounce of compassion anymore? I know a property developer who's in circa €1,000,000 debt with KBC and they wouldn't dare try to seize his home. Why are people siding with the banks?? How naive do you have to be to not realise that they don't care about you? You're nothing but a resource they exploit to turn a profit, at whatever the cost.

we know, if i go in to a casino and loose my rent money,or spend it all on drink that is my fault and i live with the consequences. fair is fair, just because people may hate banks doesnt mean you can use a sob story to get out of paying you debts.

hatrickpatrick · 13-10-2019 4:08pm

pgj2015 wrote: »

you can oppose what you want, its business, if you owe people money you pay them or get out, simple as.

It’s business which could be outlawed at the stroke of a pen if society decided to outlaw it. What frustrates me is that it isn’t even talked about as an issue on the table for reforming society.

hatrickpatrick · 13-10-2019 4:09pm

pablo128 wrote: »

Please explain to us what would happen if everyone who took out a loan didn't pay it back.

In your own time.

The for-profit usury system would collapse altogether. Good f*cking riddance.

weldoninhio · 13-10-2019 4:10pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It’s business which could be outlawed at the stroke of a pen if society decided to outlaw it. What frustrates me is that it isn’t even talked about as an issue on the table for reforming society.

So how would one buy a house if banks were not willing to give a mortgage??

fullstop · 13-10-2019 4:12pm

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Wow this is quite a toxic thread, do people not have an ounce of compassion anymore? I know a property developer who's in circa €1,000,000 debt with KBC and they wouldn't dare try to seize his home. Why are people siding with the banks?? How naive do you have to be to not realise that they don't care about you? You're nothing but a resource they exploit to turn a profit, at whatever the cost.

These **** didn’t even try to engage with the bank, over several years. It’s very difficult to evict anyone in this country. This lot were evicted through the courts and got a vigilante mob together to beat people up and kill some dogs. **** them.

pablo128 · 13-10-2019 4:12pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The for-profit usury system would collapse altogether. Good f*cking riddance.

Good luck saving up 250k under your pillow to buy a house then.

hatrickpatrick · 13-10-2019 4:16pm

pablo128 wrote: »

Good luck saving up 250k under your pillow to buy a house then.

Replacing the for profit usury based banking system with a non profit interest free public lending system wouldn’t require anyone to have 250k under their pillow.

weldoninhio · 13-10-2019 4:17pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Replacing the for profit usury based banking system with a non profit interest free public lending system wouldn’t require anyone to have 250k under their pillow.

And what about the people with savings in banks that would lose them if it went kaput??

hatrickpatrick · 13-10-2019 4:18pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

And what about the people with savings in banks that would lose them if it went kaput??

Those could be covered by the central bank as a once off during the transition to a public banking system.

weldoninhio · 13-10-2019 4:19pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Those could be covered by the central bank as a once off during the transition to a public banking system.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

13-10-2019 4:24pm

I'm sure this "non profit interest free public lending system" would take a generous attitude toward anybody who will not repay their loans??

pablo128 · 13-10-2019 4:27pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Replacing the for profit usury based banking system with a non profit interest free public lending system wouldn’t require anyone to have 250k under their pillow.

And if you got a mortgage from your not for profit bank and didn't pay it back? Still no consequences?

13-10-2019 4:34pm

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I'm sure this "non profit interest free public lending system" would take a generous attitude toward anybody who will not repay their loans??

Surely, as a lender that is essentially backed by the State, the lender could easily make orders for the attachment of earnings or welfare-transfer Income

That should be far easier to do than engaging in prolonged, adversarial litigation, as currently happens. it would be pretty much impossible to avoid paying a proportion of your income.

We have the current system because its one we inherited from a different era. If it were possible to start again from scratch, I doubt many people would suggest our present model is the ideal.

pablo128 · 13-10-2019 4:36pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Surely, as a lender that is essentially backed by the State, the lender could easily make orders for the attachment of earnings or welfare-transfer Income

That should be far easier to do than engaging in prolonged, adversarial litigation, it would be pretty much impossible to avoid paying a proportion of your income.

Your job needs your approval afaik before they agree to an attachment of earnings. That also applies if you are self employed.

hatrickpatrick · 13-10-2019 4:41pm

pablo128 wrote: »

And if you got a mortgage from your not for profit bank and didn't pay it back? Still no consequences?

I’d have no problem with a publicly owned bank repossessing land and downgrading people to basic social housing if they took the piss in this manner, but the idea of making anyone homeless is fundamentally immoral and I deplore any organization or ideology which contemplates doing so as an acceptable course of action under any circumstances.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Fantastic contribution to the debate. Would read again. :pac:

facehugger99 · 13-10-2019 4:46pm

pablo128 wrote: »

Please explain to us what would happen if everyone who took out a loan didn't pay it back.

In your own time.

The only reason lads like that get away with it for so long is because the rest of us are effectively picking up the tab for them.

cj maxx · 13-10-2019 4:50pm

The long and short of it seems they over mortgaged, as many people did during the free money boom , and KBC hired the UDA /UVF to enforce the court order .
Fu*k kbc for bringing those scumbags in and the 'other side' were right to chase them.

pablo128 · 13-10-2019 4:58pm

cjmc wrote: »

The long and short of it seems they over mortgaged, as many people did during the free money boom , and KBC hired the UDA /UVF to enforce the court order .
Fu*k kbc for bringing those scumbags in and the 'other side' were right to chase them.

If the security were Muslim or Sikh or Amish, the family would have left peacefully? Pull the other one, it plays a tune.

fullstop · 13-10-2019 5:06pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I’d have no problem with a publicly owned bank repossessing land and downgrading people to basic social housing if they took the piss in this manner, but the idea of making anyone homeless is fundamentally immoral and I deplore any organization or ideology which contemplates doing so as an acceptable course of action under any circumstances.

Who is being made homeless here? Don’t they have other properties?

13-10-2019 5:06pm

pablo128 wrote: »

Your job needs your approval afaik before they agree to an attachment of earnings. That also applies if you are self employed.

An attachment order is a court order, the whole point is that it is compulsory.

http://mcmahonsolicitors.ie/attachment-of-earnings-and-benefits/

cj maxx · 13-10-2019 5:09pm

pablo128 wrote: »

If the security were Muslim or Sikh or Amish, the family would have left peacefully? Pull the other one, it plays a tune.

I don't understand that post. ?
They weren't security , they were an outlawed bunch of thugs hired to strong arm people out of their homes.
I hope their asses burned all the way back to portadown or wherever

Brendan Bendar · 13-10-2019 5:13pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The for-profit usury system would collapse altogether. Good f*cking riddance.

So you could horse up 35Ok for a house out of your back pocket?

The Commies back in the day lived miserable lives where everyone existed in drab communities,existed from day to day.

That your kind of gig, my friend?

Guy:Incognito · 13-10-2019 5:52pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And this is precisely why some of us fundamentally oppose the very concept of usury and for-profit banking.

Well dont get involved in it. Go live in a tent in the woods and let the rest of us live in normal society.

Guy:Incognito · 13-10-2019 5:57pm

cjmc wrote: »

I don't understand that post. ?
They weren't security , they were an outlawed bunch of thugs hired to strong arm people out of their homes.
I hope their asses burned all the way back to portadown or wherever

Why was any security needed?

Maybe the bank should have waited another few years sending ever more strongly worded letters begging the people to get out of thei (the banks) property, yeah?

If people either A) paid their debts they willfully took out themselves or

didnt pay then pissed off out of it, the banks wouldnt need to waste more money paying for security to collect on whats owed.

weldoninhio · 13-10-2019 6:01pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I’d have no problem with a publicly owned bank repossessing land and downgrading people to basic social housing if they took the piss in this manner, but the idea of making anyone homeless is fundamentally immoral and I deplore any organization or ideology which contemplates doing so as an acceptable course of action under any circumstances.

Fantastic contribution to the debate. Would read again. :pac:

Oh, you were serious!!

JCJCJC · 13-10-2019 6:32pm

cjmc wrote: »

I don't understand that post. ?
They weren't security , they were an outlawed bunch of thugs hired to strong arm people out of their homes.
I hope their asses burned all the way back to portadown or wherever

Will you go away with that ould bull****. If an employee of CIE was a republican sympathizer, would you call the whole company IRA terrorists?
They were a legitimate security company exercising their lawful right to work across an EU border. The politics past or present of their employees is irrelevant. The thugs were the gang who caused trouble at the repossession and those who subsequently attacked the security men. It was obvious it wasn’t their first rodeo. That was where the criminality lies. Same psychopathic mindset as the thugs who assaulted the Quinn executive.

13-10-2019 6:41pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I sincerely hope so, but unfortunately I'd imagine that the Gardaí will do a "ring of steel" type operation in order to prevent the eviction being interfered with. Not getting my hopes up for a reprise of what happened last time, but life can always surprise you...

This is an absolutely disgusting atitiude. Do you have any idea what those scumbags did to the security?
They are filth, scumbags & I really hope they do a long time in prison

Oh & you don't think they did it for anything other than financial gain do you? Because they are paid thugs.
How did you feel about what happened to Quinn executive Kevin lunney?

CatFromHue · 13-10-2019 6:50pm

cjmc wrote: »

The long and short of it seems they over mortgaged, as many people did during the free money boom , and KBC hired the UDA /UVF to enforce the court order .
Fu*k kbc for bringing those scumbags in and the 'other side' were right to chase them.

To say they over mortgaged is about 1% of what the guy in question did.

He signed an agreement when getting the loan that he'd be the only person living in the place, broke multiple agreements he made with the bank, was given multiple chances by the bank to work with them, agrees to vacate the property and then changes his mind again.

relax carry on · 13-10-2019 7:00pm

CatFromHue wrote: »

To say they over mortgaged is about 1% of what the guy in question did.

He signed an agreement when getting the loan that he'd be the only person living in the place, broke multiple agreements he made with the bank, was given multiple chances by the bank to work with them, agrees to vacate the property and then changes his mind again.

That's not even starting on all his others debts including Revenue debt, which is stealing from the state, ie you and me. He appears to have racked up a 100% penalty on his Revenue debt which is only applicable in cases of deliberate action and non cooperation. This is someone who seems to take no responsibility for their own actions.

NoteAgent · 13-10-2019 7:17pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I’d have no problem with a publicly owned bank repossessing land and downgrading people to basic social housing if they took the piss in this manner, but the idea of making anyone homeless is fundamentally immoral and I deplore any organization or ideology which contemplates doing so as an acceptable course of action under any circumstances.

So in other words everybody, no matter how lazy should get a free house. Thats a great way to harbour ambitions and a good work ethic...not.
And of course under this policy the most productive in society would have to pay for the least productive peoles lifestyle.

mgn · 13-10-2019 8:53pm

Edgware wrote: »

A house only fit for the bulldozer and middling land. No value except for agricultural use. Someone will buy it. They havent too many locals that would support them by illegal means

That what the likes of you think.

mgn · 13-10-2019 8:56pm

Edgware wrote: »

Thats didnt stop you coming in and posting uninformed ****e.

Seen that you seem to know it all,is the land going to be repossessed with the house?

mgn · 13-10-2019 9:03pm

JCJCJC wrote: »

Will you go away with that ould bull****. If an employee of CIE was a republican sympathizer, would you call the whole company IRA terrorists?
They were a legitimate security company exercising their lawful right to work across an EU border. The politics past or present of their employees is irrelevant. The thugs were the gang who caused trouble at the repossession and those who subsequently attacked the security men. It was obvious it wasn’t their first rodeo. That was where the criminality lies. Same psychopathic mindset as the thugs who assaulted the Quinn executive.

The same legitimate security company that evectided a few squatters in Dublin a while back, plenty of outrage in the media about though.

pgj2015 · 13-10-2019 9:25pm

mgn wrote: »

The same legitimate security company that evectided a few squatters in Dublin a while back, plenty of outrage in the media about though.

squatters aren't people i care about to be honest with you.

mgn · 13-10-2019 10:44pm

pgj2015 wrote: »

squatters aren't people i care about to be honest with you.

Neither do i or people who don't pay what the owe either.

Edgware · 13-10-2019 10:45pm

mgn wrote: »

Seen that you seem to know it all,is the land going to be repossessed with the house?

No. They're just going to put the house on the back of a truck and take it away

mgn · 13-10-2019 10:50pm

Edgware wrote: »

No. They're just going to put the house on the back of a truck and take it away

You just don't have a clue about anything do you, and you call me uninformed.

Edgware · 13-10-2019 10:59pm

mgn wrote: »

You just don't have a clue about anything do you, and you call me uninformed.

With the depth of knowledge you have shown I don't know how could you possibly come to that conclusion.
Do you know where Strokestown is by the way?

mgn · 13-10-2019 11:02pm

Edgware wrote: »

With the depth of knowledge you have shown I don't know how could you possibly come to that conclusion.
Do you know where Strokestown is by the way?

I do, i pass through it a few times a week.

And what's more i know the history of Strokestown too.

Edgware · 13-10-2019 11:11pm

mgn wrote: »

I do, i pass through it a few times a week.

And what's more i know the history of Strokestown too.

Well done. You are excused homework for the week

mgn · 13-10-2019 11:14pm

Edgware wrote: »

Well done. You are excused homework for the week

Thanks, Teacher.

blueythebear · 13-10-2019 11:22pm

The people that are in the house are squatters. They do not own the property. Yes, they are the brother and sister of the owner and guy that borrowed the money but they have no interest in the property.

The guy that borrowed the money, screwed the bank for years and is now engaging in pseudo legal nonsense. He has no respect for the laws of the land given he hasnt bothered to engage with the court.

It is absolutely ridiculous that this can happen. If you take a loan you pay it back. If you provide something as security for a loan it should be taken off you when you default.

Next step will be the gardai arriving to arrest anyone onsite. Im sure we will not see a repeat of the last incident unless the mob are going to attack the gardai.

mgn · 13-10-2019 11:36pm

blueythebear wrote: »

The people that are in the house are squatters. They do not own the property. Yes, they are the brother and sister of the owner and guy that borrowed the money but they have no interest in the property.

The guy that borrowed the money, screwed the bank for years and is now engaging in pseudo legal nonsense. He has no respect for the laws of the land given he hasnt bothered to engage with the court.

It is absolutely ridiculous that this can happen. If you take a loan you pay it back. If you provide something as security for a loan it should be taken off you when you default.

Next step will be the gardai arriving to arrest anyone onsite. Im sure we will not see a repeat of the last incident unless the mob are going to attack the gardai.

I agree 100% with you, i just feel sorry for the brother and sister that lived there all of their lives being thrown out because the other brother dident pay his debts.
I think if i was in the same boat, i might not go to easy either.

pablo128 · 13-10-2019 11:44pm

mgn wrote: »

I agree 100% with you, i just feel sorry for the brother and sister that lived there all of their lives being thrown out because the other brother dident pay his debts.
I think if i was in the same boat, i might not go to easy either.

As far as I am aware, the brother and sister only moved back in when the eviction proceedings started.

blinding · 14-10-2019 12:00am

Once more unto the breech .

mgn · 14-10-2019 12:02am

pablo128 wrote: »

As far as I am aware, the brother and sister only moved back in when the eviction proceedings started.

https://www.shannonside.ie/news/local/roscommon/breaking-strokestown-family-given-month-leave-property-kbc-wins-high-court-case/

blueythebear · 14-10-2019 12:06am

mgn wrote: »

I agree 100% with you, i just feel sorry for the brother and sister that lived there all of their lives being thrown out because the other brother dident pay his debts.
I think if i was in the same boat, i might not go to easy either.

I understand whst youre saying but i dont really tfeel bad for them, to be honest. They had to have known what was going on, certainly at least when summons servers came looking for the brother. Or when the sheriff came knocking in advance of the eviction.

Also...while the papers are keen to point out that while the family had nothing to do with the attack, it is a fact that they moved back in immediately after and then, months later seem to be challenging the county sheriffs entitlement to carry out any evictions at all.

They are simply drawing this process out as much as they can in the hope that the bank will give up. If ever there was a case in which the bank couldnt give up, its this one! For the optics of the thing, the bank must do everything to retake the property and enforce their security. There will be no deals done and no quarter given

blueythebear · 14-10-2019 12:09am

Oh and i notice that some posters earlier complained about sweetheart deals obtained by others they see as rich or connected. The personal insolvency legislation does not apply to the people in the house. They are not borrowers. The guy who borrowed the money could easily get a similar arrangement depending on his means, but he would rather waste the courts time with pseudo legal mumbo jumbo as the judge called it

beggars_bush · 15-10-2019 7:19pm

JCJCJC wrote: »

The issue was the bugger didn’t pay his debts.

I fully agree. And he deserved to be evicted

However, you cannot hire loyalist henchmen to enforce a court order

Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

Comments

Strokestown Mod Note in Post #4461