Squatters in Dublin to get millions!

thebaz

Ruen wrote:

..they just got paid.
How is that a tactic? Anybody in their right mind whether they're a traveller or not would hold out for "cash" if the law says they're entitled to it.

.. call it a tactic , call it a habit , call it a way of life , whatever the latest PC word is , but the reality is for years the travellers , have invaded prominent public property, set up camp, refused to leave , create an illegal dump, refuse to leave ... except for a nice tidy sum , and in cash ... if you don't believe this is happening , youv'e obviosly had very limited dealing with travellers .. the Equality group also believe travellers get a raw deal in Irish society, and are fine law abiding citizens .. what in fact do travellers actually give to Irish society , they are wonderfull at taking , as this Dunsink incident highlights

Mexicola

How the f*ck do these guys have rights like this... They dont own the land.
Down with squatters "rights"

mikemac

Will they be paying income tax and capital gains tax on this money?

Somehow I doubt it

Ruen

gurramok wrote:

The owner was a foreign absentee landlord who didnt care what happened to their barren fields.
I blame the arse of a law, the don't care attitude of the landlord and the lazy Dublin COUNTY council(pre Fingal) that allowed something like this to happen in the first place for 20 odd years.
What happens if we all found a prime derelict site and decided to squat on it for 12 years?..We'd be millionaires as well!!

Exactly, barren fields and landlord didnt care so if they go and live in a field nobody cares about it's not their problem if after more than 20 years the landlord decides to claim the land.
Well the way the law stands at the moment if we did do that and we were lucky enough to find some derelict land and the owner didnt care what we done on it and in twenty years it becomes prime development opportunity then yes we would all be millionaires as well....actually sounds like a good plan:D
The way I see it is that the council never cared about the travellers living there until it was worth something and those guys basically just lucked out...a case of picking the right place at the right time 20 years ago.

but the reality is for years the travellers , have invaded prominent public property, set up camp, refused to leave , create an illegal dump, refuse to leave ... except for a nice tidy sum , and in cash ...if you don't believe this is happening , youv'e obviosly had very limited dealing with travellers

So why do people give them the cash, why not just have them removed before they can stake a claim(about 20 years after moving in on land btw:rolleyes: )??
Actually thebaz I dont believe it because I've had enough dealings with the typical irish idiot that thinks everybody else, especially people who are different from him, are getting a better deal than him.

Ruen

micmclo wrote:

Will they be paying income tax and capital gains tax on this money?

Somehow I doubt it

Ehh why? Of course they will, seeing as how everybody and their ma knows about it the Revenue will too

Marathon Man

whippet wrote:

t
I can quite honestly say that in my 30 years on this island I have never had a positive experience with a traveller. Yet my views are classified as stereotypical and 'racist'.

Not by me mate.

Marathon Man

DaveMcG wrote:

They shoulda sent in the riot squad to crack some skulls before it even came to this. F*cking scumbags.

Agreed. If it was anyone else say, hippies, students or legitimate protesters there would definitely be some skulls cracked. But because it is knacker vermin that occupy this space the authorities are walking on eggshells. Pretty bad form if you ask me as it just incites more of the same behaviour. The knackers should now head to Ballsbridge, i heard there might be some future development there. They could camp in the Jurys car park and wait for a pay off.

Karoma

Marathon Man wrote:

Agreed. If it was anyone else say, hippies, students or legitimate protesters there would definitely be some skulls cracked. But because it is knacker vermin that occupy this space the authorities are walking on eggshells. Pretty bad form if you ask me as it just incites more of the same behaviour. The knackers should now head to Ballsbridge, i heard there might be some future development there. They could camp in the Jurys car park and wait for a pay off.

Watch it.


@Binomate: Advocating violenece is unaccpetable. Watch it.

Marathon Man

dame wrote:

Where do you think the council get their money?
From the rest of us paying taxes.

Exactly. As usual decent people are paying for the uneducated, unclean, uncivilized (and every other 'un' possible) Knackers.
They don't deserve anything but a good kicking.

Ruen

Marathon Man wrote:

Agreed. If it was anyone else say, hippies, students or legitimate protesters there would definitely be some skulls cracked. But because it is knacker vermin that occupy this space the authorities are walking on eggshells. Pretty bad form if you ask me as it just incites more of the same behaviour. The knackers should now head to Ballsbridge, i heard there might be some future development there. They could camp in the Jurys car park and wait for a pay off.

Do you even realise they didnt just turn up there recently, they've been there for over 20 years, protesters and students dont protest or stay students for over 20 years:rolleyes: It takes many years before a squatter can claim rights to any land, it's not a case of 'hey they're going to build some apartments in that field in a few months so let's head down tomorrow and by next week they'll be paying us off'

Karoma

Marathon Man wrote:

Exactly. As usual decent people are paying for the uneducated, unclean, uncivilized (and every other 'un' possible) Knackers.
They don't deserve anything but a good kicking.

*applauds* After a warning... clever boy.
Banned.

Ruen

Marathon Man wrote:

Exactly. As usual decent people are paying for the uneducated, unclean, uncivilized (and every other 'un' possible) Knackers.
They don't deserve anything but a good kicking.

Is there something wrong with being uneducated?

Rb

Meh, they've been there for 20 years. The law is on their side, and it has certainly been long enough for someone to come back and claim it, yet they didn't, therefore their loss. Let us not forget how many Irish squatted in England throughout the 60s,70s,80s etc.

Agent Smith

It makes me feel so warm inside to think that money that could have been used for something like the health sevice or transport is spent this way....

mikemac

Quick and easy solution.

The land is not developed on yet so we call it agricultural land.
So CPO and pay the going rate for agricultural land-it surely can't run into millions.

Would this work?

I'd like to know what this absentee landlord in the UK is doing. I wonder is he so rich that he can afford to write off land like this

Crazy Christ

I'm shocked at the level of racism in this thread.

Filthy sponging knackers are entitled to their legal rights the same as the rest of us so I would encourage a more humane attitude towards filthy sponging knackers from all of you

Ruen

agent smith wrote:

It makes me feel so warm inside to think that money that could have been used for something like the health sevice or transport is spent this way....

Council money doesnt go into health service or transport anyway.

CiaranC

DaveMcG wrote:

They shoulda sent in the riot squad to crack some skulls before it even came to this. F*cking scumbags.

Maybe you should try reading a newspaper.

Guy:Incognito

Ruen wrote:

Do you even realise they didnt just turn up there recently, they've been there for over 20 years, protesters and students dont protest or stay students for over 20 years:rolleyes: It takes many years before a squatter can claim rights to any land, it's not a case of 'hey they're going to build some apartments in that field in a few months so let's head down tomorrow and by next week they'll be paying us off'

Do you even realise that no one cares how long they've been there and are not debateing the fact of the law seeign as it's been said over and over already in this thread. People are annoyed that the law allows it to happen.

The fact is, if I buy apatch of land in the arse end of Offaly tomorow, I should be able to go down there in 30 years time and expect it to still be there and in my ownership since I bought and owner the ****ing thing. There should be no provision for people to steal just because no one noticed it missinf for a certain lenght of time.

I'll also repeat my earlier question seeing as you missed it:

If you found out you were left a few acres of land worth a few million but when you went out you were told "sorry, these knackers have had their caravans here for 20 years, they own your land now" I asume you'd say "fair enough, carry on" and be on your way, yeah?

Ruen wrote:

Council money doesnt go into health service or transport anyway.

Not directly but put it this way. The less the council need to spend the less they get form public coffers. The more thats in public coffers , the more can be spent.

TBh I'd rather it was stolen by corrupt politicians.

Collie D

Regardless of who these people are they broke no law. Whether you agree with it or not, there are squatters' rights. Imagine I find a wad of notes and advertise it in the hope that the owner comes forward. I give them say three months to collect. Tough **** if they don't, I was honest and offered it up but nobody's interested. It's going in my back pocket. Probably not morally right but it's not illegal.

Also interesting to see how many people see a "good kicking" as a solution to everything. And they'll probably post tomorrow about the amount of scum on the streets. Or is at all hide behind the monitor hard man talk??

PauloMN

Fingal Co. Co. are the culprits here. The level of incompetence of some sections of our civil servants beggars (excuse the pun) belief - for this to happen without any action being taken before now is shocking.

The erm... "travellers" (what's the PC term these days anyway - non-house dwellers?? :rolleyes: ) are taking advantage of the situation as they always would, but the council should never ever have let this happen.

Personally I think it should be challenged - Fingal Co. Co. should investigate every single way possible to get out of not paying these non-house dwellers. Surely there's some way to get out of it? For example, could the fact that they have continuously flouted our litter laws, our tax laws, our vehicle laws etc. not be a valid reason for telling them to GTF?

I'm not sure what the plans are to develop the land, but if getting out of paying them €20m or whatever is not an option, the possibility of just building all around them and forcing them out should be investigated. Literally build on top of them and let them keep their little corner until they just up and leave.

Crazy Christ

I don't think that there was any element of 'lets move onto this land and we'll own it legit in 20 years'

...for the simple reason that the travellers' life expectancy is not much longer than 20 years. These crowd must be drinking radioactive water or something to last this long

Sangre

Squatter's rights (or adverse possession) exist for some solid reasons.

Firstly it stops the land falling into disuse and disrepair at the hands the the rich, absentee landlord. Land is seen as extremely valuable to society and the court has decided, use it or lose it. We can't have huge tracts land left lying around in rural areas for decades.

Similarily it protects those who honestly believe they are on their land, this is especially important in areas where boundaries aren't clearly marked. Imagine you built and lived on a piece of land that you honestly and reasonably though was yours but then the landlord shows up 20 years to evict you. Pretty gutting.

2 of the requirments are that the landlord has to be out of possession for over 12 years and there has to be a 'squatter' there for at least 12 years. Pretty hard to fulfill. Regain possession for even an instant after 11 years and the time restarts. Of course it can be hard on genuine land owners but there has to be a cut off point. Do you think you should have a right to land that has been passed down for 100 years that has been heavily built on since then?

finally, obviously the doctrine has no application if the people on your land have your consent.

although it is all in doubt because of a recent ECHR judgement afaik.

Personally I think it should be challenged - Fingal Co. Co. should investigate every single way possible to get out of not paying these non-house dwellers. Surely there's some way to get out of it? For example, could the fact that they have continuously flouted our litter laws, our tax laws, our vehicle laws etc. not be a valid reason for telling them to GTF?

Hardly. Do you think the fact you haven't paid some taxes is reason enough to be kicked out of the house you own?
Although technically the landowner still has title to the land, he is just statute barred from enforcing it. Same reason you can't bring a personal injury claim against someone 20 years after the fact. The owner is barred from enforcing his rights so the person with the next best title (those in possession) take de facto owndership.

Sam Vimes

Ruen wrote:

How do you know that now Degsy?? Why do you want him to die?

how does he know they're criminals? because it said so in the paper. a traveller representative was on the radio today and freely admitted the families in question had been convicted of a variety of offences

Ruen wrote:

I'm not saying they need sympathy or anything, why would they...they just got paid.
How is that a tactic? Anybody in their right mind whether they're a traveller or not would hold out for "cash" if the law says they're entitled to it.

in this one case they are entitled because its been 20 years. usually they just make the locals' lives a misery until they're paid to leave

Ruen wrote:

So why do people give them the cash, why not just have them removed before they can stake a claim(about 20 years after moving in on land btw:rolleyes: )??

tell me, if travellers moved into your field would you walk into the middle of the halting site and shout "f*ck off you horrible pikeys"? i don't think you would because you'd never be seen again. the gardai won't be much help because they're just as afraid. you'd need the army to get rid of them tbh. or a lot of money as in this case

Ruen wrote:

Is there something wrong with being uneducated?

when the oppurtunity of an education is offered and refused then yes

Ruen wrote:

Council money doesnt go into health service or transport anyway.

the council is paid for by a single pool of taxes. that's 2 million of the pool that won't be sent somewhere else.

Collie D wrote:

Regardless of who these people are they broke no law.

they were breaking the law on trespassing right up until the squatters rights kicked in. 12 years isn't it?

Collie D wrote:

Also interesting to see how many people see a "good kicking" as a solution to everything. And they'll probably post tomorrow about the amount of scum on the streets.

scum attack people for no reason. if i see an innocent person on the news having been gunned down i think its a tragedy, if i see a drug dealer being gunned down, then not so much. that's the difference. and i'm not advocating violence, i'm just explaining the difference

Crazy Christ wrote:

...for the simple reason that the travellers' life expectancy is not much longer than 20 years. These crowd must be drinking radioactive water or something to last this long

well there was a dump there until 10 years ago and there was talk that there was toxic waste being dumped illegally. the traveller on the radio today talked about how they were forced to live next to a dump for 20 years

he neglected to mention that people had been trying to move them on since they moved in

Mahatma coat

Ruen wrote:

Travellers is their name they dont necessarily have to travel, it's their ethnicity.

ETHNICITY!!??!!!!!
Eth****innicity, they are not a separate race, its not ethnicity, its just an excuse they use to talk Gibertish and avoid washing.

in that case I.m an ethnicity of one and I claim my freebies.

Ok so the world dosent owe me a living, but a Stereo would be nice

Mahatma coat

Sangre wrote:

Squatter's rights (or adverse possession) exist for some solid reasons.

I dont doubt you that there may have been reasons in the past to maintain these antiquated laws, I personaly think this case highlights the absurdity inherent in the system

Firstly it stops the land falling into disuse and disrepair at the hands the the rich, absentee landlord. Land is seen as extremely valuable to society and the court has decided, use it or lose it. We can't have huge tracts land left lying around in rural areas for decades(Heard of R.E.P.S.)

What I do with my land is my business not the courts, If I want to dig a huge feckin hole in the middle of it for no good reason then (planning requirements aside - dont even get me started on that ripoff) I should be entitled to do so, its my Land

Similarily it protects those who honestly believe they are on their land, this is especially important in areas where boundaries aren't clearly marked. Imagine you built and lived on a piece of land that you honestly and reasonably though was yours but then the landlord shows up 20 years to evict you. Pretty gutting.

If you are 'Honestly' on your land this should never arise, for you to claim squatters rights is to admit to 12 years of Trespassing. I dont give a **** how long people have been on the Land they dont own it they have no claim to it, not only have they stolen land that rightly belongs to someone else they have stolen part of that persons legacy to their children.

2 of the requirments are that the landlord has to be out of possession for over 12 years and there has to be a 'squatter' there for at least 12 years. Pretty hard to fulfill. Regain possession for even an instant after 11 years and the time restarts. Of course it can be hard on genuine land owners but there has to be a cut off point.

I own land in Ireland that I haventy set foot on in 6 years, I may be another 6 years before I set foot on it again, this is because I live in Australia, so because I'm not occupying my house and lands then I forefeit them to some chancer who couldnt be arsed doing things for himself and instead decides that cos I'm not using my property its a waste and therefoer he deserves it cos like - I've probably got more money than him and its allright for poor people to steal assets from the rich, thats how it works init, I shouldnt complain I had a house I should have paid more attention and not let it get stolen- seriously Ownership is Ownership and is only transferable by consent regardless of the timespans involves

Do you think you should have a right to land that has been passed down for 100 years that has been heavily built on since then?

Duh, if the l;and has been passed through the same family for 100 years then yes, are you telling me that the family that held it for 100 years didnt notice some serious heavy building on their plot of ground and charge acording rents.

finally, obviously the doctrine has no application if the people on your land have your consent.

although it is all in doubt because of a recent ECHR judgement afaik.

??????????? so I can say yes you can build a house so long as you pay rent, then you can just ignore me after the house is built and try to hold on for 12 years???????????? I heard about something like that, I hope I picked it up wrong

Hardly. Do you think the fact you haven't paid some taxes is reason enough to be kicked out of the house you own?
Although technically the landowner still has title to the land , he is just statute barred from enforcing it. Same reason you can't bring a personal injury claim against someone 20 years after the fact. The owner is barred from enforcing his rights so the person with the next best title (those in possession dont roll out that 9/10ths ****e ) take de facto owndership.

right explain this one to me, the LandOwner is barred from the process and the person who has trespassed for 12 years is rewarded for being a thief





Do you own any land????????????????

Fighting Irish

Yes they are scum and out for a quick buck, but if they are allowed do it then whats the problem. Blame the Govn not these toss pots.

Mahatma coat

OK in explanation of the 2 similar but different posts, M puter crashed as I was uploading the first post, so while I was still on a Vitriolic Roll I decided to rechannel the Rage and type it out again, slightly diferently but on the same points,

Imagine my shock to discover that both posts are now here, I might tidy it up later but right now I've gotta go back to work

Sangre wrote:

Squatter's rights (or adverse possession) exist for some solid reasons.

Adverse Posession wrote:

Definition: Open and notorious possession of property that does not belong to you in hopes of establishing a claim of right.

Firstly it stops the land falling into disuse and disrepair at the hands the the rich, absentee landlord. Land is seen as extremely valuable to society and the court has decided, use it or lose it. We can't have huge tracts land left lying around in rural areas for decades Have you heard of R.E.P.S.??

If I own the land I am entitled to just leave it or to do whatever I want with it Its mine in Perpetuity, should I decide to dig a dirty great hole in the middle of it, I should be allowed to leave it for as long as I want, who are you to second guess my intentions.

Similarily it protects those who honestly believe they are on their land, this is especially important in areas where boundaries aren't clearly marked. Imagine you built and lived on a piece of land that you honestly and reasonably though was yours but then the landlord shows up 20 years to evict you. Pretty gutting.

If you are 'honestly' on your land then this should never be an issue, if its not your land and you didnt pay for it or inherit it or come by it through some Proper LEGAL chanels then yes it perfectly reasonable for the OWNER to expect you to vacate

2 of the requirments are that the landlord has to be out of possession for over 12 years and there has to be a 'squatter' there for at least 12 years. Pretty hard to fulfill. Regain possession for even an instant after 11 years and the time restarts. Of course it can be hard on genuine land owners but there has to be a cut off point.

Why, so by your logic we shouldnt a bothered with that 800 odd years of struggle cos after 12 years they had Squatters rights anyway and we're not entitled to our family homes cos they have em

Do you think you should have a right to land that has been passed down for 100 years that has been heavily built on since then?

Damm straight I have a right to that land, multiple generations of my family wouldnt have held onto it just for ****s and giggles, but no its fine, I'm in australia for a while, so all you layabouts out there eying up my home should be allowed to move in and undo over a 100 years of tradition and heritage just cos yer too lazy to sort things out for yerself

finally, obviously the doctrine has no application if the people on your land have your consent.

although it is all in doubt because of a recent ECHR judgement afaik.

I think I heard something about this down the pub once, but I hope I was wrong,

apparently they were saying that If I rent you land and you build a house on it, normaly you have to pay me for the land - Obviously, well no- from what the lads were saying once you've built yer house and sorted access etc then ya can claim squatters rights and just sit tight cos most namby pamby local councils are pinko liberals who wish to avoid confrontation ands are willing to let you sit out yer time.

Personally I think it should be challenged - Fingal Co. Co. should investigate every single way possible to get out of not paying these non-house dwellers. Surely there's some way to get out of it? For example, could the fact that they have continuously flouted our litter laws, our tax laws, our vehicle laws etc. not be a valid reason for telling them to GTF?

agree, but dont give em the money at all, just investigate the bstrds and take everything they have, they wanna squat well they can start again with nothing

Hardly. Do you think the fact you haven't paid some taxes is reason enough to be kicked out of the house you own?

Dunno, if you actualy owned it maybe there may be a case.

Although technically the landowner still has title to the land, he is just statute barred from enforcing it. Same reason you can't bring a personal injury claim against someone 20 years after the fact. The owner is barred from enforcing his rights so the person with the next best title (those in possession dont start with that 9/10ths ****e) take de facto owndership.

[/quote]

So the title is still in the landowners name, then its still his land.




Do you own any land??

Mahatma coat

Just a thought, but if this did happen to me where would I stand (still holding the title deed) if I mortgaged the whole lot to the eyeballs just before the courts made me hand it over to some swampie??

Ste.phen

I imagine the bank wouldn't be too thrilled with you leaving out those relevant details.