Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

klaaaz

blueythebear wrote: »

Plus when you have three or four elected representatives thinking a sit-in tonight in the bank is a good idea, I am getting worried that the country is becoming a haven for paranoid lunatics.

It's excellent that we have 3 TD's who are sticking up for vulnerable old people when dealing with the banks. Stress is a major killer of our older people and banks are ruthless in their dealings, they only care about money and not the human suffering.

gandalf

klaaaz wrote: »

You say you're middle aged, your body will have a much better chance to survive a savage beating than what an elderly senior citizen suffered in Roscommon.

Again there was no savage beating. The chancer says he was punched in the face 20 to 30 times, if that happened to me I'd be in bits therefore by your logic Mr Ex Garda would be worse off. Yet on the photo seen earlier in the thread all he has is a bloody nose? And surely your not calling the scraped knee a savage beating.

Oh I was using the World Health definition of elderly which is 65.

hynesie08

klaaaz wrote: »

It's excellent that we have 3 TD's who are sticking up for vulnerable old people when dealing with the banks. Stress is a major killer of our older people and banks are ruthless in their dealings, they only care about money and not the human suffering.

There it is, shark jumped. You're not fun anymore.....

klaaaz

gandalf wrote: »

Again there was no savage beating. The chancer says he was punched in the face 20 to 30 times, if that happened to me I'd be in bits therefore by your logic Mr Ex Garda would be worse off. Yet on the photo seen earlier in the thread all he has is a bloody nose? And surely your not calling the scraped knee a savage beating.

There was a savage beating, you saw the video and the reports of the beating not on the video and injuries inflicted. The victim sought medical help afterwards, that's not just a "bloody nose". If that was you, you would not seek medical help as you're a younger person able to take a right beating.

blueythebear

klaaaz wrote: »

It's excellent that we have 3 TD's who are sticking up for vulnerable old people when dealing with the banks. Stress is a major killer of our older people and banks are ruthless in their dealings, they only care about money and not the human suffering.

Think it's a good thing that they are aligning themselves with Mr Beades in doing so ? He surely has nothing to gain from stopping evictions...

Wheeliebin30

klaaaz wrote: »

There was a savage beating, you saw the video and the reports of the beating not on the video and injuries inflicted. The victim sought medical help afterwards, that's not just a "bloody nose". If that was you, you would not seek medical help as you're a younger person able to take a right beating.

What video?

heroics

klaaaz wrote: »

That's your narrative which is based on state pension benefits, not based on reality.
As proven, elderly is a person who is past middle age like an elderly senior citizen.



See above about 65, that was the state pension age which is not reflective of reality. Of course FG plan to raise the pension age further making old infirm people work till they die.
You say you're middle aged, your body will have a much better chance to survive a savage beating than what an elderly senior citizen suffered in Roscommon.

Do you actually read what you write? It’s like the old saying never argue with an idiot they will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I posted a link from WHO which says that 65 is generally taken as elderly and you decided an old article from the Irish times is more accurate.

Again where was the savage beating. I have not seen a single example of a savage beating in any of the pictures or videos about the eviction.

If you honestly believe that the picture of the booboo on that guys knee is an example of a savage beating you must have a very sheltered life

gandalf

klaaaz wrote: »

There was a savage beating, you saw the video and the reports of the beating not on the video and injuries inflicted. The victim sought medical help afterwards, that's not just a "bloody nose". If that was you, you would not seek medical help as you're a younger person able to take a right beating.

Will you ever feck off any normal person who has seen that video will watch the contractors behave in very restrained manner against people who should not have been on the banks property. I'm off to bed, you have given me a good laugh this evening and I believe you do realise that we are right but are taking the piss at this stage. Have a good night, I can't wait to see what further comedy gold you bring to this thread in the morning.

Wheeliebin30

Has EOTR chalked his name??

How he gets away with destroying every thread is beyond me.

Good night.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote: »

You say you're middle aged, your body will have a much better chance to survive a savage beating than what an elderly senior citizen suffered in Roscommon.

State pension age is 66, but my mother is that age & I wouldn't like to see what she would do to you if you called her an elderly senior citizen!

Wheeliebin30

Do you know how many repossessions happen up north and Sinn Féin are nowhere to be seen?????

What’s the difference??????

expectationlost

bb12 wrote: »

This is where the heretofore unmentioned 3rd brother PJ lives on his 200 acre farm

a lot of wheel tracks between the two farmsteads https://goo.gl/maps/kJU6cpLCdP12

Lefty Bicek

pablo128 wrote: »

Is that right? Only I noticed that he's only 63 according to this article here. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/roscommon-eviction-falsk-strokestown-kbc-13742736.amp&ved=2ahUKEwiihsrg46nfAhXErHEKHbiTCmcQFjABegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0ZOchsTYNZ2cgIeqeUJuT2&ampcf=1

What the fcuk is pwnage by the way?

Why the need for such an aggressive tone ? Nobody was talking to you.

Heard of Google ?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pwnage

Makes sense that you wouldn't know that, you certainly carry on like you were born after 2006.



.

Lefty Bicek

Omackeral - What do you consider elderly?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108927846&postcount=3082

klaaaz : Per dictionary definition, past middle age

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108927902&postcount=3084

O : If you insist.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary middle age is between 45 and 65

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108928288&postcount=3096

O : You tried to be pedantic...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108928304&postcount=3097

k : The victim who sustained the horrific injuries in the violent attack is 65



But here O, you didn't correct k on the age of the individual in question, because you didn't know it. You're that pedantic, you wouldn't have passed it up.

But calling other people pedantic after starting such a ridiculous line of inquiry in the first place...




Cambridge definition
Quote:
Middle age - the period of your life, usually considered to be from about 45 to 60 years old

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108928400&postcount=3099


pablo : Only I noticed that he's only 63 according to this article

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108928477&postcount=3104


And here we have an character for whom the concept of 63 > 60 is a bit too highbrow.

What a pair of shills.


.

Omackeral

end of the road wrote: »

i don't because i don't. please withdraw that shameful allegation against my good name.thank you.

Proof?

Sam Quentin

This thread is mad Cráic :-)))

Omackeral

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

O : You tried to be pedantic

That poster said he was going with dictionary definitions. I responded in kind with one that went against what he claimed. I agree that it got pedantic but I was only playing him at his own obtuse game. What certainly didn't occur, however, is a horrific injury of any sort. If you don't think that yourself, then we've nothing further to discuss as we'd be operating in different realities I'm afraid. So, do you think there any "horrific injuries" to the occupants?

aido79

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Has EOTR chalked his name??

How he gets away with destroying every thread is beyond me.

Good night.

Think he got carried away and pressed the reply button instead of the thank button for a change.

Lefty Bicek

Omackeral wrote: »

That poster said he was going with dictionary definitions. I responded in kind with one that went against what he claimed. I agree that it got pedantic but I was only playing him at his own obtuse game. What certainly didn't occur, however, is a horrific injury of any sort. If you don't think that yourself, then we've nothing further to discuss as we'd be operating in different realities I'm afraid. So, do you think there any "horrific injuries" to the occupants?

It was convenient to throw out a shorthand dictionary definition, because it's such a specious question, imo.

It's beyond petty to reduce the whole thing to an arbitrary number that is not even agreed upon between dictionaries.


As to injuries - I have seen no evidence for it, having seen the video. But I haven't seen all the video evidence. Not impressed by the knee picture.


In my personal experience, the kind of trauma that is involved here, does not need brutal violence to have seriously deleterious effects on people's health.

Some people are just not robust, and are vulnerable to shock at ages well before ~65. Especially people with underlying conditions.

That is why I detest all the ignorant nitpicking and point-scoring on here about whether they are elderly or middle-aged.

All a load of bo11ox, arguing over whether they are 64 years + 364 days old, or 66 years + 1 day old.

Omackeral

So no truly horrific physical injuries that we know of. At least that's agreed.

Grayditch

Omackeral wrote: »

So no truly horrific physical injuries that we know of. At least that's agreed.

R.I.P. Cromwell the dog.

simongurnick

Omackeral wrote: »

So no truly horrific physical injuries that we know of. At least that's agreed.

I thought the poor security guards got hurt? The poor wee fellas

Omackeral

Grayditch wrote: »

R.I.P. Cromwell the dog.

That was ruff.

Liamalone

So many posts, so many posts.

Once, a wide man once said. So many posts.

Jeez, he was a wide boy, but never, never it did.

As yer girl Boy George once said, up yer hole, up yer hole.

Koom bai yah, Koom bai yah

hatrickpatrick

hynesie08 wrote: »

Has nothing to do with this case though does it, people need to stop potraying this as a "those who don't learn from history" situation. It's a lad who hasn't bothered his hole paying loans or debts getting kicked out of a home that isn't his.

The homes which belonged to tenant farmers weren't "theirs" either, they belonged to the landlords who, by the standards of many in this thread, had every right to raise rent as high as they wanted and turf people out for non payment.

Again, why are campaigns against this regarded as legitimate by history, but similar campaigns today or not? Or are all the pro-eviction, pro-landlord, pro-bank folks implying that they regard the success of the land league back in the day as a bad thing? Some sort of communist takeover perhaps? :rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick

gandalf wrote: »

And your point is? The guy at the centre of this took a loan out as an adult and then behaved like a immature kid and didn't pay it off. He brought this on his own head. Both situations are NOTHING alike.

My point is that opposition to evictions is a legitimate political belief and not some radical lunacy as many here are suggesting. And they're exactly alike - someone can't pay their debt (whether to a landlord or a bank is irrelevant) so they get turfed out of their home. The fledging Irish Republic decided that this was unacceptable. It's perfectly legitimate for Irish people today to feel the same way.

kippy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The homes which belonged to tenant farmers weren't "theirs" either, they belonged to the landlords who, by the standards of many in this thread, had every right to raise rent as high as they wanted and turf people out for non payment.

Again, why are campaigns against this regarded as legitimate by history, but similar campaigns today or not? Or are all the pro-eviction, pro-landlord, pro-bank folks implying that they regard the success of the land league back in the day as a bad thing? Some sort of communist takeover perhaps? :rolleyes:

Christ, the mind boggles.

How you can compare this situation to that of landlords turfing out tenants for no reason whatsoever is worrying.

The issue here is the non payment of debt and/or taxes.
Were we all to be have in the manner of the farmer involved here, we would indeed be back in the dark ages.
At some point people have to take some responsibility for their actions. It looks as if all avenues were exhausted here (after close to a decade).
How long do you suggest that people be allowed freeload off everyone else?

gctest50

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My point is that opposition to evictions is a legitimate political belief and not some radical lunacy as many here are suggesting. And they're exactly alike - someone can't pay their debt (whether to a landlord or a bank is irrelevant) so they get turfed out of their home. The fledging Irish Republic decided that this was unacceptable. It's perfectly legitimate for Irish people today to feel the same way.

There's about 40 places to rent in Roscommon


https://touch.daft.ie/search/results?search%5Bareas%5D%5B%5D=%7B%22id%22%3A21%2C%22name%22%3A%22Co.+Roscommon%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22county%22%7D&search%5Bad-type%5D=rental&search%5Bsale-or-rental%5D=&search%5Bmin-price%5D=&search%5Bmax-price%5D=900&search%5Bmin-bed%5D=&search%5Bmax-bed%5D=&search%5Bmin-size%5D=&search%5Bmax-size%5D=&search%5Bmin-bath%5D=&search%5Bmax-bath%5D=&search%5Broom%5D=&search%5Bsort%5D=price-ascending&search%5Baddress%5D=

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's perfectly legitimate for Irish people today to feel the same way.

It is in no way the same.

These are not people with 8 kids and a failed potato crop


McGann didn't pay € 179,000 in VAT

kippy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My point is that opposition to evictions is a legitimate political belief and not some radical lunacy as many here are suggesting. And they're exactly alike - someone can't pay their debt (whether to a landlord or a bank is irrelevant) so they get turfed out of their home. The fledging Irish Republic decided that this was unacceptable. It's perfectly legitimate for Irish people today to feel the same way.

Two totally different scenarios.
How you marry the two is worrying.

Basicilly the line of thought completely vindicates people borrowing large sums of money, and intentionally not paying any of it back, with no consequences.
Society cannot function on those grounds.

amcalester

Today's Indo reporting that of the 2 companies involved in the eviction 1 is registered in the Republic. Also reports that one of the reasons for the attack was that local PSA registered security workers were annoyed at not getting the gig.

Judging by their MO, things could have been a lot worse for the McGanns.