Are people fooled by this.

I have noting against sinn fein or any other political party for that matter, however I would not vote sinn fein.

It emerged in yesterday that about 2000 people who are in arrears with their mortgage's have enough in another deposit account to pay their arrears, Pearce Doherty put the spin on it that the people concerned could be/ would be putting the money away to educate their children as the evil government is making third level colleges charge fees and the evil banks want people to pay their arrears instead of educating their children.

The political parties must know most people don't believe the spin they put on issues or do they really believe if you spin it enough some of it might stick?

dr.bollocko

Moved from AH.

techdiver

Unfortunately the average person is dumb and will lap up the populist drabble from Sinn Fein.

Banjo String

mariaalice wrote: »

I have noting against sinn fein or any other political party for that matter, however I would not vote sinn fein.

It emerged in yesterday that about 2000 people who are in arrears with their mortgage's have enough in another deposit account to pay their arrears, Pearce Doherty put the spin on it that the people concerned could be/ would be putting the money away to educate their children as the evil government is making third level colleges charge fees and the evil banks want people to pay their arrears instead of educating their children.

The political parties must know most people don't believe the spin they put on issues or do they really believe if you spin it enough some of it might stick?

Any source?

SamHall

SamHall wrote: »

Any source?

Pearse Dohety was on the radio news yesterday saying this, going to be honest and say not sure if it was RTE or News Talk as I flick between them most days for my news. I am not having a pop at Sinn Fein it is more the spinning aspect.

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

Any source?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/aib-boss-says-strategic-defaulters-make-up-4-per-cent-of-the-bank-s-overall-mortgage-book-1.1515140

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/aib-boss-says-strategic-defaulters-make-up-4-per-cent-of-the-bank-s-overall-mortgage-book-1.1515140

Pearse Doherty isn't the 'boss' of AIB?

AIB boss made those claims, hardly surprising. But did Pearse Doherty make the claims as suggested in the OP?

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

Pearse Doherty isn't the 'boss' of AIB?

AIB boss made those claims, hardly surprising. But did Pearse Doherty make the claims as suggested in the OP?

It might help then, if you specify what sources you're looking for.

SamHall

SamHall wrote: »

Pearse Doherty isn't the 'boss' of AIB?

AIB boss made those claims, hardly surprising. But did Pearse Doherty make the claims as suggested in the OP?

Yes he did I don't know how to put a link to a radio news report in to this, I am sure I could find it in on a pod cast.

dublinbhoy88

techdiver wrote: »

Unfortunately the average person is dumb and will lap up the populist drabble from Sinn Fein.

or fianna fail,or the other cheek of there arse fine gael

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

It might help then, if you specify what sources you're looking for.

Well the opening sentence referred to the OP having nothing against SF, then saying they wouldn't vote SF.

The next paragraph went on to specifically mention what Pearse Doherty supposedly said about strategic defaulters, and making claims they were squirreling away cash for college fees instead of paying the mortgage.

I asked for a source?

What, pray tell me, did you think I wanted a source for alastair?

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

Well the opening sentence referred to the OP having nothing against SF, then saying they wouldn't vote SF.

The next paragraph went on to specifically mention what Pearse Doherty supposedly said about strategic defaulters, and making claims they were squirreling away cash for college fees instead of paying the mortgage.

I asked for a source?

What, pray tell me, did you think I wanted a source for alastair?

The core issue; the 2000 strategic arrears, perhaps?

GarIT

Do people not see this as reasonable? I'm saving for college and that comes before the house, education is much more valuable to me than a house. We're not in arrears, but if it got to the point where it was a choice between college fees or the mortgage that got paid it would be the fees.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

The core issue; the 2000 strategic arrears, perhaps?

My core issue would be a claim that a TD, opposed to the bank bailout, bondholders being repaid, and generally on the side of the citizens of the country, made such claims that people who could afford to pay their mortgage's are not.

You're very slow to correct the OP Alastair.

Pearse Doherty didn't make any such claims, would you not deem that important to point out?

cursai

If education is more important. They should prioritise that and live within their means either by negotiating with the bank or selling or handing the house back.

Although this money in their deposits is not actually for these things and is a distraction and pluck at heartstrings by Sinn Fein(insert relevant political party). Which will distract and draw attention to them as it is doing.

You can have noting against a political party and decide not to vote for them its perfectly normal. I like Pearse Doherty I think he has convictions, however I dislike how slick he is, which is down to how the party he is in operates.

Why I wouldn't vote for them is I am not a socialist although I have a leaning that way, but more importantly it is the dishonesty and spinning that put me off.

SamHall

SamHall wrote: »

My core issue would be a claim that a TD, opposed to the bank bailout, bondholders being repaid, and generally on the side of the citizens of the country, made such claims that people who could afford to pay their mortgage's are not.

You're very slow to correct the OP Alastair.

Pearse Doherty didn't make any such claims, would you not deem that important to point out?

Yes he did, he did not say all defaulters who have money in another account are doing this he very CAREFULLY said could be/Would be. implying virtue in the defaulter and vice in the bank for wanting their money.

Banjo String

mariaalice wrote: »

Yes he did, he did not say all defaulters who have money in another account are doing this he very CAREFULLY said could be/Would be. implying virtue in the defaulter and vice in the bank for wanting there money.

No he did not.

He asked a question to David Duffy, upon giving the numbers of people he reckoned are strategically defaulting by having money, but refusing to pay the mortgage.

Sinn Féin’s Pearse Doherty questioned Duffy about whether this disposable income included making allowances for unforeseen costs associated with things such as third-level education for children.

This is at odds with your claim :

Pearce Doherty put the spin on it that the people concerned could be/ would be putting the money away to educate their children as the evil government is making third level colleges charge fees and the evil banks want people to pay their arrears instead of educating their children.

Only one spin I see on this thread.

flutered

SamHall wrote: »

No he did not.

He asked a question to David Duffy, upon giving the numbers of people he reckoned are strategically defaulting by having money, but refusing to pay the mortgage.



This is at odds with your claim :



Only one spin I see on this thread.

sam hall thanks for putting the child to bed.

GarIT

GarIT wrote: »

Do people not see this as reasonable? I'm saving for college and that comes before the house, education is much more valuable to me than a house. We're not in arrears, but if it got to the point where it was a choice between college fees or the mortgage that got paid it would be the fees.

With respect, no I don't see it as reasonable.

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

My core issue would be a claim that a TD, opposed to the bank bailout, bondholders being repaid, and generally on the side of the citizens of the country, made such claims that people who could afford to pay their mortgage's are not.

You're very slow to correct the OP Alastair.

Pearse Doherty didn't make any such claims, would you not deem that important to point out?

Doherty would seem to have responded to the news that 2000 people were choosing to go into arrears by inquiring if education savings funds might account for some - pretty much what the OP said.

Sinn Féin Finance Spokesperson Pearse Doherty asked Mr Duffy about an example of an individual setting aside money in a deposit account to pay for their children's college fees.

Mr Duffy said if somebody had decided to put money aside that meant they were not paying their mortgage.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0903/471840-aib-oireachtas-committee/

Deputy Pearse Doherty: Let me just deal with the strategic defaulters. In respect of strategic defaulters, I note Mr. Duffy's explanation of how he defines them. He talks about people who have savings in a non-current account that would be in excess of their arrears. If I was in arrears for 90 days or more, my child was 16 years of age and about to go to college and I had to pay college fees and was making partial payments on my loan but was, say, €8,000 in arrears and had €9,000 to make sure Michael was able to pay his college fees, would I be a strategic defaulter under Mr. Duffy's definition because I have more money in a non-current account than I owe in arrears?

SamHall

SamHall wrote: »

No he did not.

He asked a question to David Duffy, upon giving the numbers of people he reckoned are strategically defaulting by having money, but refusing to pay the mortgage.



This is at odds with your claim :

I put it in After hours and in that style the evil bank and evil government was meant in a light hearted manor.

I was making a point about spinning and slickness and to ask if people are fooled by this at all or if they are astute enough no to be fooled by spinning and to ask why do political parties engage in the process. Why are things implied or suggested etc. Get my vote by your polices alone.

techdiver

GarIT wrote: »

Do people not see this as reasonable? I'm saving for college and that comes before the house, education is much more valuable to me than a house. We're not in arrears, but if it got to the point where it was a choice between college fees or the mortgage that got paid it would be the fees.

Then you should surrender the asset that you are not paying for and cut your cloth to suit your means.

If I stopped paying rent to save for college fees, I would be out on my ear pretty quick. Why should "home owners*" be treated any different?


* Home owners are not "owners" until their last mortgage payment is received and the deeds handed over by the bank.

GarIT

techdiver wrote: »

Then you should surrender the asset that you are not paying for and cut your cloth to suit your means.

If I stopped paying rent to save for college fees, I would be out on my ear pretty quick. Why should "home owners*" be treated any different?


* Home owners are not "owners" until their last mortgage payment is received and the deeds handed over by the bank.

That's what I would do. If we couldn't afford the house we would hand it back to the bank and move in with grandparents. I never said mortgage holders should be treated differently and actually agree with you.

I was just saying if it is what those people are doing I don't think it's as bad as the media are making it out to be. They should be kicked out of their houses sooner though.

druidstone

Where you people come from who think you can choose college fees rather than paying for your mortgage if you have spare money in the bank? Do you think this country (and the world) owes you a house for free? At the end of the day, someone has to pay for the banks loss of profit if you dont pay your mortgage and it's the rest of the bank customers who have to pay higher fees. If you are in arrears in your mortage, and you have enough money in the bank to pay for the mortage payments you should be paying your mortage first, and get a loan for the college fees. Get another job, work more hours to pay for it. If you default on your mortgage be prepared to lose your house. That's how it works, you signed a contract when you borrowed the money. You borrow money, you fail to pay it back, the lender claims the goods. What kind of example are you setting for your kids? Make your kids get a job as soon as they are old enough and make them start paying their own way. My parents didn't pay for my college fees - I had to pay for my own while working part-time! They taught me what it's like to live in the real world, just like their parents did before them. They made me independant, self-sufficient and I don't rely on anyone to pay my way, and I love them for doing that! They also taught me not to live beyond my means. By living in a smaller house, you can be happy and debt-free. My first house at age 18 was a caravan and I loved it! Too many people give their kids an easy life and they grow up to become greedy adults who don't appreciate anything and expect everything to be provided for them. Sorry if I have offended anyone, but that's my opinion.

Chips Lovell

Doherty and Duffy's assertion are all on the record:

Doherty wrote:

Let me just deal with the strategic defaulters. In respect of strategic defaulters, I note Mr. Duffy's explanation of how he defines them. He talks about people who have savings in a non-current account that would be in excess of their arrears. If I was in arrears for 90 days or more, my child was 16 years of age and about to go to college and I had to pay college fees and was making partial payments on my loan but was, say, €8,000 in arrears and had €9,000 to make sure Michael was able to pay his college fees, would I be a strategic defaulter under Mr. Duffy's definition because I have more money in a non-current account than I owe in arrears?

Duffy wrote:

What I would say very clearly is that if somebody decides that they want to pay something else, they have made a decision not to pay their mortgage. The mortgage is a loan to a person secured against their asset. It is the prioritised asset. If a person decides to pay anything else, they have made a decision not to pay their mortgage.

Valetta

Going to college is a privilege, not a right.

Paying your mortgage is an obligation, not a choice.

Dark Rabbit

Education is very important. When I was a teenager I was an ardent supporter of Sinn Feinn and agreed with their policys however through my education and attending one of their meetings I soon saw what they what they are and who they represent.
I listened to that interview yesterday and sadly have to agree with Tech Driver that the 'average person is dumb and will lap up the populist drabble from Sinn Fein'.

srsly78

Dark Rabbit wrote: »

I soon saw what they what they are and who they represent

It's not really a secret that they are as much a bunch of commies, the only question is how far exactly to the left do they lean. Are they hardcore skull-field Khmer-Rouge style commies or are they fluffy european socialists? The former will pretend to be the latter until power is gained.

Vladimir Kurtains

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Doherty and Duffy's assertion are all on the record:

I was talking about his radio interviews as well. It was all about IMPLYING virtue in the the defaulter ( as many as possible of then ) and vice in the bank.

Just for a laugh I would have loved to have been in the meeting where sinn fein back room boys and girls though that one up. How best to present ( spin) someone one who has more in a saving account than they own in arrears on their mortgage.

Chips Lovell

Essentially it's just populist, vote-seeking rhetoric from Doherty.

I can't seen even SF making it an actual policy that you should be allowed default on your mortgage if you've "better things" to be spending your money on.

Are people fooled by this? Some, no doubt. There does appear to be a constituency in the electorate who'll vote for people who tell them what they want to hear, no matter how unrealistic that may be.

Roger_007

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Essentially it's just populist, vote-seeking rhetoric from Doherty.

I can't seen even SF making it an actual policy that you should be allowed default on your mortgage if you've "better things" to be spending your money on.

Are people fooled by this? Some, no doubt. There does appear to be a constituency in the electorate who'll vote for people who tell them what they want to hear, no matter how unrealistic that may be.

That would be the majority of the electorate, judging by the number of cute hoors, del boys, (and girls), and champagne socialists we manage to elect.

The most important thing you have to do to get elected in this country is to promise that you can create utopia for no cost whatsoever to Sean Citizen. You must never explain where the money is to come from.

If you get into a position of power and things inevitably turn out not as well as you promised, you lay the blame, (in no particular order), on one or more of the following:
The EU,
The bankers,
The Troika,
The IMF
The Germans.

(The British used to be the favourite whipping boys but in recent times they have dropped out of the blame game. Even Sinn Fein have taken to blaming the Germans, rather than the Brits, for everything. I suppose this could be regarded as progress of a sort).

The one thing you must never, ever, do is blame decent, honest, hardworking, innocent Sean Citizen for anything at all. Luckily, Sean Citizen is stupid enough to swallow your rhetoric and elect you.

This is called democracy.:mad:

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I can't seen even SF making it an actual policy that you should be allowed default on your mortgage if you've "better things" to be spending your money on.

I'm sure SF can't see that either, but tbf, that's not what Pearse Doherty was getting at. (not from how I read it)

He didn't put a spin on anything, he asked Duffy for examples of people that had money in other accounts, he mentioned college fees alright, I think his point being that he was getting Duffy to acknowledge the people he was referring to weren't in beamers, living it up in the Caribbean rather than pay the mortgage.

FF asked him a very similar question.

Fianna Fáil finance spokesperson Michael McGrath also probed the chief executive on a similar issue. He enquired about what circumstances mortgage holders who have entered into a negotiated settlement with bank would qualify for a ‘debt break for a period of time’. He referenced cases of bereavement or medical emergency.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Are people fooled by this? Some, no doubt. There does appear to be a constituency in the electorate who'll vote for people who tell them what they want to hear, no matter how unrealistic that may be.

As the current coalition can testify.

Chips Lovell

SamHall wrote: »

I think his point being that he was getting Duffy to acknowledge the people he was referring to weren't in beamers, living it up in the Caribbean rather than pay the mortgage.

Except Duffy never intimated that they were, so if that's what Doherty was doing, it was a useless exercise.

SamHall wrote: »

As the current coalition can testify.

Exactly.

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Except Duffy never intimated that they were, so if that's what Doherty was doing, it was a useless exercise.

I think anyone who doesn't give the mortgage first preference over any other bill isn't living in reality, so I sincerely hope that's not what he was doing.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Exactly.

Well, to be fair to Pearse Doherty, I think he freely admitted that David Duffy provided helpful information.

All political parties spin its just some are better than others at it and some examples of it are more jaw dropping that others.

boarsboard

a lot of people are going to vote fianna fail in the next election
they caused most of the problem,thats how stupid voters are



http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0903/471840-aib-oireachtas-committee/

jimmycrackcorm

GarIT wrote: »

Do people not see this as reasonable? I'm saving for college and that comes before the house, education is much more valuable to me than a house. We're not in arrears, but if it got to the point where it was a choice between college fees or the mortgage that got paid it would be the fees.

If you were homeless would you still prioritise paying fees over paying for accommodation or do you think it's ok not to pay off the back is the one who you have to pay.

COYW

Plenty of people out there love this kind of guff OP. It absolves them of any wrong doing. It is also the brand of victim politics that SF excels in and have mastered over the past few decades in Northern Ireland.

Expect more and more of this kind of rubbish ("Socialism") over the next few years. Decades of socialism has failed this country, yet people seems to want more and more of it. The mind boggles!

Nodin

COYW wrote: »

............

Expect more and more of this kind of rubbish ("Socialism") over the next few years. Decades of socialism has failed this country, yet people seems to want more and more of it. The mind boggles!

...it was de-regulation and capitalism, as far as I could see.

alastair

COYW wrote: »

Decades of socialism has failed this country, yet people seems to want more and more of it. The mind boggles!

Remind me again; which were the socialist decades?

golfball37

Developers have all gotten deals from banks for their loans when they refused to pay back what they owed. They didn't sacrifice their lifestyle one iota from what I can see.

Why should a distressed home owner act any differently. I'm in favour of strategic default as I believe the Irish banks deserve to go the wall unless they tackle the biggest issue facing a lot of people today.

Chips Lovell

And who's going to cover the cost of a banking collapse? The taxpayer of course.

jmayo

GarIT wrote: »

Do people not see this as reasonable? I'm saving for college and that comes before the house, education is much more valuable to me than a house. We're not in arrears, but if it got to the point where it was a choice between college fees or the mortgage that got paid it would be the fees.

And I presume you understand that in that case you should lose your home because you aren't paying for it ?

Banjo String wrote: »

My core issue would be a claim that a TD, opposed to the bank bailout, bondholders being repaid, and generally on the side of the citizens of the country,

Would these be the citizens that think the magic money tree will pay off their debts and they can keep their properties and the citizens who think that we can revoke the state spending cuts and yet fine some smucks to lend us money ?

As a citizen of this country I can categorically state that pierse doherty has never been on my side.

Valetta wrote: »

Going to college is a privilege, not a right.

Paying your mortgage is an obligation, not a choice.

Very well said.
A pity some people haven't copped on that salient truth.

alastair wrote: »

Remind me again; which were the socialist decades?

remember bertie who upped public spending and adopted joe higgins clothes.
We have never been right of centre in this country.
Our welfare system is better than most so scalled socialist states.

golfball37 wrote: »

Developers have all gotten deals from banks for their loans when they refused to pay back what they owed. They didn't sacrifice their lifestyle one iota from what I can see.

Why should a distressed home owner act any differently. I'm in favour of strategic default as I believe the Irish banks deserve to go the wall unless they tackle the biggest issue facing a lot of people today.

Well then you fooking pay for it.
I am already angry at paying for connected eejits like dunne, mcnamara, quinlan, ronan, kelly, carroll, etc, etc, etc without now being expected to cough up for the eejits down the road who think they should get to stay in the properties they could not afford in the first place without borrowing loads of money.

alastair

jmayo wrote: »

remember bertie who upped public spending and adopted joe higgins clothes.

I remember when he was rightly derided for trying to make that claim alright.

jmayo wrote: »

We have never been right of centre in this country.

We've never been an ideologically-driven state. Centrist populism has been our stock-in-trade, with a lean left or right from time to time (usually at the same time).

jmayo wrote: »

Our welfare system is better than most so scalled socialist states.

No it isn't.

View

jmayo wrote: »

We have never been right of centre in this country.

The electorate would appear to disagree since they have never, ever come close to giving the left of centre (or anything closely reassembling it) a majority.

Most of the electorate regard the Labour Party, never mind the other "left" parties, as being far too radical for them to vote for.

Cody Pomeray

I have to say I have nothing but respect for people who are strategiclly defaulting on their property.

Fúck it, if the banks want to play legal hardball with homeowners, let the homeowner bleed them dry. It's unfortunate that the Government have implicated the Exchequer in these matters, but that was not the decision of the homeowner, whose prerogative it remains to exercise his legal rights against an indefensibly stupid collection of organizations.

Roger_007

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I have to say I have nothing but respect for people who are strategiclly defaulting on their property.

Fúck it, if the banks want to play legal hardball with homeowners, let the homeowner bleed them dry. It's unfortunate that the Government have implicated the Exchequer in these matters, but that was not the decision of the homeowner, whose prerogative it remains to exercise his legal rights against an indefensibly stupid collection of organizations.

As long as you understand that every euro not paid back comes out of everyone else's pocket one way or the other.:(

Cody Pomeray

Roger_007 wrote: »

As long as you understand that every euro not paid back comes out of everyone else's pocket one way or the other.:(

Again, regrettable but not the homeowners responsibility.

If I own a house I can no longer afford, and the bank are not engaging with me, am I going to walk away from a house in which I am legally entitled to reside and use as my home?

You must be joking! Any sensible person in that situation is going to start saving, and continue living in that home as long as possible.

A normal person would meet public astonishment if he asked the banks to relinquish their contractual and statutory or other legal rights on grounds of compassion. Legal positivists on boards.ie (many of which reside in this section) would be singing in unison "we own the banks/ a bank is not a charity".

I see no reason why the homeowner should meet their exasperation and impassioned expectations with nothing less than an equal level of astonishment and dismissal.

Homeowners in arrears are not charities.

They owe the taxpayer nothing.

oscarBravo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

...the homeowner, whose prerogative it remains to exercise his legal rights...

Homeowners have a legal right to refuse to repay their debts, and to retain possession of the asset against which they've secured those debts?

Jack Kyle

If I was in arrears, struggling to get by month to month and had an amount equal to the arrears on deposit, I wouldn't clear the arrears.

That deposit could be an individual's only means of feeding their family.

I'd be far more hostile towards people who generate surplus funds every month but do not attempt to clear their arrears.