"Land League" refounded

Foxhound38

Now here's a blast from the past! :pac:

Am I missing something here? When these people stop paying back their mortgages, what do they expect should happen?

Also, is that yer man who was going on about that fella Constant Markievicz who died so we wouldn't have to pay taxes anymore in the picture? :rolleyes:

What do ye reckon AH? Genuine grassroots movement or a bunch of nutters jumping on a bandwagon?

wazky

Any relation to the Justice League?

Zed Bank

Davitt is turning in his grave.

Wacker The Attacker

Dear Taxpayer,

See above.

Pocoyo

I think they are amazing,The banks should concentrate on seizing 2nd properties etc first. The banks,And the government and its institutions are a farce.

mickydoomsux

I'm just tired of this nonsense at this stage. It's in the terms and conditions when you sign up that you could get evicted if you fail to pay your mortgage.

Plus, no one held a gun to your head to make you take out a mortgage.

But let's keep blaming the banks and politicians for a product you have to opt-into.

Aongus Von Bismarck

This was organised by a charming chap called Jerry Beades. Jerry Beades was on the national executive of FF during the Bertie Ahern era. He was also a developer and one of the lads who 'helped out' Bertie. He was also a close personal friend of Ahern and was known as one of the members of the 'Drumcondra Mafia'.

Excuse my language, but Jerry Beades can blow it out his hole.

4zn76tysfajdxp

If Ben Gilroy isn't behind it, I refuse to take this seriously. Otherwise I'd think they're all just a bunch of spoiled, cry-baby cranks.

"How many tens of thousands of families are behind in their mortgage repayments with the banks?" he asked.

"Are they going to evict them all? It's impossible. We are trying to impress upon them that is just impossible. They have to come up with meaningful and realistic solutions," he said.

Load of nonsense
Pay your bills, that's a realistic solution
Or it should be

Sh1tbag OToole

Aaron Thousands Hose wrote: »

If Ben Gilroy isn't behind it, I refuse to take this seriously. Otherwise I'd think they're all just a bunch of spoiled, cry-baby cranks.

You have to admit its a nice idea though, boot out the big massive for-profit financial institutions, take all their stuff and have a massive piss up. Its not as organised as everyone quietly slaving away to pay back interest on an overpriced house. In fact the world would be more interesting if all the big powerful boring fcuks were booted out of it

Davarus Walrus

Aaron Thousands Hose wrote: »

If Ben Gilroy isn't behind it, I refuse to take this seriously. Otherwise I'd think they're all just a bunch of spoiled, cry-baby cranks.

I'm sure Ben of the House Gilroy is involved in some capacity. Busy man between representing himself in court, looking like a down-at-heel Jay Leno on his TV show from Studio 2, and running for Europe in the next election. I'd imagine he is still pulling at some of the puppet springs.

For Forks Sake

Can we expect to see Clann na Talmhan or Cumannn na mBan returning any time soon?

4zn76tysfajdxp

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

You have to admit its a nice idea though

No I don't.

Aaron Thousands Hose

Aaron Thousands Hose wrote: »

No I don't.

Just admit it.

Sh1tbag OToole

Aaron Thousands Hose wrote: »

No I don't.

What have they ever done for you?

4zn76tysfajdxp

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

What have they ever done for you?

What, banks? They mind my money and then give me more money for the pleasure of minding my money.

Davarus Walrus

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

What have they ever done for you?

Well, I'd rather some sort of functioning banking system. You know, for things like the distribution of money, cash flow, overdraft facilities and so forth. This romanticised vision that the Plain People of Ireland should tell banks to fúck off is usually made by people with all the political and economic nuance of a small coconut.

Adamantium

wazky wrote: »

Any relation to the Justice League?

The Land League Universe:

A few origin movies based on Ireland's myths and legends and heroes, culimnating in a time travel movie where our heroes are brought forward to the future to fight the evils of Modern Ireland.

Michael Fassbender plays Cú Chulainn

The Backwards Man

Are they going to boycott common sense and due process or what?

4zn76tysfajdxp

Adamantium wrote: »

Michael Fassbender plays Cú Chulainn

"Wait a minute, that's not his hurley!"

For Forks Sake

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Are they going to boycott common sense and due process or what?

Oh that ship has long since sailed. I'd say this rabble is packed full of the sort of person who spend their days asking Gardai 'are you on your oath?'

SEPT 23 1989

I have no problem with evictions but what i do have a problem with is banks chasing a homeless family who have lost everything for the shortfall of the debt

Jonny Blaze

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

I'm sure Ben of the House Gilroy is involved in some capacity. Busy man between representing himself in court, looking like a down-at-heel Jay Leno on his TV show from Studio 2, and running for Europe in the next election. I'd imagine he is still pulling at some of the puppet springs.

Sir Ben of House Gilroy eh?

What is their sigil?

What are their words?

Sh1tbag OToole

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Well, I'd rather some sort of functioning banking system. You know, for things like the distribution of money, cash flow, overdraft facilities and so forth. This romanticised vision that the Plain People of Ireland should tell banks to fúck off is usually made by people with all the political and economic nuance of a small coconut.

But they rip us all off in the long run, this is the hefty price we pay for the illusion of living in a civilised society, and civilised society is fairly frickin boring tbh

kneemos

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I have no problem with evictions but what i do have a problem with is banks chasing a homeless family who have lost everything for the shortfall of the debt

You think we all should pay other people's debts?

darkpagandeath

kneemos wrote: »

You think we all should pay other people's debts?

Refresh my memory did we pay back the Unsecured bond holders ?

Sh1tbag OToole

kneemos wrote: »

You think we all should pay other people's debts?

You mean thats not what we're doing already?

Pocoyo

I see the 99% are fighting among themselves as usual divide and conquer,You lot just keep paying your tax so those bankers can keep their huge bonuses but when it comes to your own ie the poor you go off on one,Its a shame.

Pastor Toastman

Pocoyo wrote: »

when it comes to your own ie the poor you go off on one,Its a shame.

The poor?! With their mortgages & all?

Pocoyo

Pastor Toastman wrote: »

The poor?!

The poor.

Pastor Toastman

You're very eager, there. I made an edit, "the poor, with their mortgages & all". God love them.

SEPT 23 1989

kneemos wrote: »

You think we all should pay other people's debts?

already paid

kneemos

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Refresh my memory did we pay back the Unsecured bond holders ?

We?
Did anyone have a choice or think it was a good idea.
It's a good analogy for the mortgage holders repaying all their dept though.We don't want banks giving away our hard earned.

KyussBishop

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I'm just tired of this nonsense at this stage. It's in the terms and conditions when you sign up that you could get evicted if you fail to pay your mortgage.

Plus, no one held a gun to your head to make you take out a mortgage.

But let's keep blaming the banks and politicians for a product you have to opt-into.

Except many of the banks made mortgages, in full knowledge that they were junk loans (unsustainable debt), and they are culpable for leading us into an economic crisis which undercut peoples ability to pay their loans.

Criminologists who are experts on fraud of this type, are of the opinion that Ireland's crisis could only be caused by massive accounting control fraud by banks, and there are whistleblowers like Jonathan Sugarman, who have exposed fraud and shown that the central-bank/regulators are arguably protecting banks/financial-institutions, by threatening whistleblowers and doing nothing to enforce regulations - they implicitly threatened Jonathan Sugarman that he would get in trouble with the police, if he reported wrongdoing to the central-bank/regulators.

If we see a proper investigation of banking fraud - something we are unlikely to see, based on the above precedent, even with the banking inquiry - if we see that, then many mortgage contracts could be invalidated through court, due to the banks actions; leading to massive loan writedowns.


Since we are not likely to see a proper enquiry though, and the banks have disproportionate political influence to protect themselves and put themselves above the law (by not being investigated/prosecuted for likely fraud), then the public and homeowners, should exert their own political influence, in opposition to these arguably-invalid mortgage contracts.


Foreclosures do very little to solve any problem - it would cost nothing, to just write down the loan on a house, to the value it would be sold for if it were foreclosed; that should be done before anything else.

KyussBishop

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Well, I'd rather some sort of functioning banking system. You know, for things like the distribution of money, cash flow, overdraft facilities and so forth. This romanticised vision that the Plain People of Ireland should tell banks to fúck off is usually made by people with all the political and economic nuance of a small coconut.

The banks won't be any more functional after foreclosures - private debt is already unsustainable, and past the point of avoiding mass writeoffs:
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10548104/IMF-paper-warns-of-savings-tax-and-mass-write-offs-as-Wests-debt-hits-200-year-high.html

There is zero economic benefit to foreclosures, because private debt is unsustainable no matter how many houses you foreclose on - writeoffs are inevitable.

The argument in favour of foreclosures, is purely a (one-sided) moral one - it's got nothing to do with having a functional economy.

KyussBishop

Pastor Toastman wrote: »

The poor?! With their mortgages & all?

What, you think debt makes someone less poor, rather than more poor (after the asset they bought becomes hugely devalued)?

Ok then - here's a good solution to poverty: Have everyone take out a mortgage - nobody is poor anymore, right?

Pastor Toastman

KyussBishop wrote: »

What, you think debt makes someone less poor, rather than more poor (after the asset they bought becomes hugely devalued)?

Ok then - here's a good solution to poverty: Have everyone take out a mortgage - nobody is poor anymore, right?

I thought the poor where those who never had a chance? I can't bring myself to call a mortgage-holder "poor", no matter their present financial situation.

darkpagandeath

kneemos wrote: »

We?
Did anyone have a choice or think it was a good idea.
It's a good analogy for the mortgage holders repaying all their dept though.We don't want banks giving away our hard earned.

Those bond holders purchased unsecured bonds, They gambled on a bank they thought was solvent. As far as I know they were not covered in the EU-IMF deal and cant believe their luck as their bonds were honoured.

Pocoyo

Pastor Toastman wrote: »

I thought the poor where those who never had a chance? I can't bring myself to call a mortgage-holder "poor", no matter their present financial situation.

You do understand that some poor people are trapped in mortgages? I think you owe me an apology.

KyussBishop

kneemos wrote: »

We?
Did anyone have a choice or think it was a good idea.
It's a good analogy for the mortgage holders repaying all their dept though.We don't want banks giving away our hard earned.

Look: The private debt is unsustainable, mass defaults are coming eventually - most likely - and foreclosures are barely a dent in this.

A large part of the market buying up property right now, are those who have cash-in-hand; i.e. financial institutions and people with a lot of money (including some of those who got rich exploiting the bubble leading up to the crash) - if you dump a load of foreclosed houses onto the market, a large number of them will go into this groups hands, leading to an increased upward redistribution of wealth.

What foreclosures are going to do, is help enrich many of the groups who helped caused the crisis, at the expense of all the screwed-over homeowners - who get screwed yet again.

What matters between now and eventual defaults (or the EU getting some sense and engaging in recovery policies), is preventing the kinds of upwards resdistribution of wealth that foreclosures would cause - lobbying in favour of debt writedowns, and against foreclosures, is a way to do this.


Foreclosures/no-foreclosures, will make no difference to the tax payers pocket in the long run, because we are already so screwed that defaults are inevitable.

No Pants

Pocoyo wrote: »

when it comes to your own ie the poor you go off on one

I went off on a poor person once. I think she got some in her eye.

Pocoyo

No Pants wrote: »

I went off on a poor person once. I think she got some in her eye.

What went in her eye?????

Pastor Toastman

Pocoyo wrote: »

You do understand that some poor people are trapped in mortgages? I think you owe me an apology.

People have fallen on hard times before. Using emotive terms like "the poor" can annoy some who might otherwise be sympathetic.

Pocoyo

Pastor Toastman wrote: »

People have fallen on hard times before. Using emotive terms like "the poor" can annoy some who might otherwise be sympathetic.

Well that term would annoy so few its hardly a justifiable concern.

Pastor Toastman

Pocoyo wrote: »

Well that term would annoy so few its hardly a justifiable concern.

I know a few people who are struggling with repayments, but if I called them "poor", I'm pretty sure they would be annoyed.

They still have their home & dignity, still have a measure of control over their situation. By no means destitute.

Pocoyo

Pastor Toastman wrote: »

I know a few people who are struggling with repayments, but if I called them "poor", I'm pretty sure they would be annoyed.

If your so concerned with wording cheer them up call them millionaires im sure they will have a good laugh at your expense.

Sh1tbag OToole

Pastor Toastman wrote: »

I know a few people who are struggling with repayments, but if I called them "poor", I'm pretty sure they would be annoyed.

They still have their home & dignity, still have a measure of control over their situation. By no means destitute.

A silly brick box they cant afford to keep and dignity doesnt buy you anything. Them the debt follows you if you give up the brick box. You'd be better off on the street with 5c in your pocket than some people with a mortgage

kneemos

KyussBishop wrote: »

Look: The private debt is unsustainable, mass defaults are coming eventually - most likely - and foreclosures are barely a dent in this.

A large part of the market buying up property right now, are those who have cash-in-hand; i.e. financial institutions and people with a lot of money (including some of those who got rich exploiting the bubble leading up to the crash) - if you dump a load of foreclosed houses onto the market, a large number of them will go into this groups hands, leading to an increased upward redistribution of wealth.

What foreclosures are going to do, is help enrich many of the groups who helped caused the crisis, at the expense of all the screwed-over homeowners - who get screwed yet again.

What matters between now and eventual defaults (or the EU getting some sense and engaging in recovery policies), is preventing the kinds of upwards resdistribution of wealth that foreclosures would cause - lobbying in favour of debt writedowns, and against foreclosures, is a way to do this.


Foreclosures/no-foreclosures, will make no difference to the tax payers pocket in the long run, because we are already so screwed that defaults are inevitable.

Don't have a problem with people making money it all gets redistributed anyway.
Probably right about being screwed,millions in interest on writedowns or millions in rent allowance for the repossessed.

RobbingBandit

Should be using their attention to help homeless people rather than bailing out property speculators.

Fratton Fred

Pocoyo wrote: »

I see the 99% are fighting among themselves as usual divide and conquer,You lot just keep paying your tax so those bankers can keep their huge bonuses but when it comes to your own ie the poor you go off on one,Its a shame.

I have plenty of sympathy for those that can't pay. However, a lot of these groups seem to be more of the won't pay variety. They can kiss my arse tbh.

Roger_007

If the principle that nobody can be evicted for non-payment of a mortgage becomes established, how is anyone to get a mortgage in future?
What lending institution is going to lend to anyone given that there is effectively no security for the loan?
Why would anyone who has a mortgage bother paying it back at all if the lending institution can do nothing about it.
What is the next generation supposed to do. They can never aspire to owning a home because nobody will give them a loan.
This campaign is so short-sighted it next thing to being blind.