Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

gandalf

blanch152 wrote: »

Was that the fella with a small cut on his knee, or the one who got a nosebleed from all the excitement?

It's the same guy. Apparently those "life changing" injuries were used as an excuse to go at a dog with an axe on Sunday morning.

facehugger99

simongurnick wrote: »

They didn't protect the fella pinned down by 5 goons.

They should have given him a good kick in the hole for acting the spa.

gandalf

facehugger99 wrote: »

They should have given him a good kick in the hole for acting the spa.

God no then we'd have eejits posting pictures of his ar$e onto the Interwebs!

Wheeliebin30

Sycamore Tree wrote: »

It's fascinating to see opinions change on this one amongst work colleagues as the week goes by. I guess the facts have overtaken the initial outrage and a few folks have gone very quiet.

Every one of these stories from homeless to evictions etc always start with outrage against the government then the truth comes out.

I feel for the government who member get a chance to defend themselves and get abuse for lies.

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Every one of these stories from homeless to evictions etc always start with outrage against the government then the truth comes out.

I feel for the government who member get a chance to defend themselves and get abuse for lies.

Ye wha

The government are in prime position to defend themselves if they're being accused of lying via the Dail/and media platforms etc, and if/proven they are/were - deserve abuse.

simongurnick

gandalf wrote: »

Perceived is the key word here. The real problem is that your perception of the situation is wrong and twisted. If this was someone who got into difficulty because of illness or unemployment but who did try and service their debts or engaged with the bank and still got evicted I'd agree with the protest (once it was peaceful).

However the reality (not the perception) is we have a serial defaulter who has tax judgements and district court convictions. He has been given plenty of opportunities to come to an agreement and didn't bother. He is not worthy of any sort of support or protest. It definitely isn't an excuse for the barbarity that was unleashed on Sunday morning. This is the real world version not the concocted green tinged narrative that broke on Sunday, which has been falling apart as the details of the whole farce have become apparent.

It's neither wrong nor twisted just different from yours. And it's slightly amusing you talk of the real world narrative through this virtual forum you choose to populate while people in the actual real world have already taken affirmative action.

simongurnick

weldoninhio wrote: »

He was being restrained while on private property, not attacked. So no need for the police to step in as it was reasonable force. And it was 3 security personnel.

And what age was he again?

simongurnick

hynesie08 wrote: »

What laws were being broken??

I would say it was assault.

hynesie08

simongurnick wrote: »

I would say it was assault.

You would be wrong....

Wheeliebin30

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Ye wha

The government are in prime position to defend themselves if they're being accused of lying via the Dail/and media platforms etc, and if/proven they are/were - deserve abuse.

Yeah of course they can just come out and say Margaret Cash deliberately put herself homeless in a Garda station to get a free house.

There wouldn’t be outrage from the left and Sinn Fein if they did.

simongurnick

blanch152 wrote: »

So you do think that vigilante mob justice is ok.

Astonishing disregard for the rule of law.

Answer my question. And yes, in certain circumstance I believe a vigilante response is warranted.

simongurnick

hynesie08 wrote: »

You would be wrong....

Oh noo! What an I going to do???

hynesie08

simongurnick wrote: »

Oh noo! What an I going to do???

Call the guards? Or the 'RA?

kippy

simongurnick wrote: »

Answer my question. And yes, in certain circumstance I believe a vigilante response is warranted.

What circumstances do you believe a vigilante response is warranted?

simongurnick

hynesie08 wrote: »

Call the guards? Or the 'RA?

Or the disgruntled security workers of roscommon?

simongurnick

kippy wrote: »

What circumstances do you believe a vigilante response is warranted?

Hypothetical situation and real simple. Someone attacks your home or family. Local police do not protect you adequately. You get attacked again...what do you do?

kippy

simongurnick wrote: »

Hypothetical situation and real simple. Someone attacks your home or family. Local police do not protect you adequately. You get attacked again...what do you do?

What do you fine as "local police do not protect you adequately"?

What exactly about the situation in Roscommon warrants a vigilante response?

hynesie08

simongurnick wrote: »

Or the disgruntled security workers of roscommon?

Nah, wouldn't call them, can't do their job without hatchets and weren't good enough to be asked to evict Methuselah and his family. Wouldn't rely on them to have my back.

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yeah of course they can just come out and say Margaret Cash deliberately put herself homeless in a Garda station to get a free house.

There wouldn’t be outrage from the left and Sinn Fein if they did.

Would that be lies?

Haven't been keeping up with her (Cash) benefit threads, but I was thinking more along the lines of them telling lies they're later called out on.

I think you lost your point.

simongurnick

kippy wrote: »

What do you fine as "local police do not protect you adequately"?

What exactly about the situation in Roscommon warrants a vigilante response?

Hasn't this all been discussed before? Look up my previous posts.

Faugheen

simongurnick wrote: »

Hypothetical situation and real simple. Someone attacks your home or family. Local police do not protect you adequately. You get attacked again...what do you do?

Honestly, you have literally zero argument to defend a man who refused to pay his debts for 9 years.

You don’t pay your debts, you lose your home. You refuse to leave the home at the order of the High Court, you get f*cked out of it.

‘Attacked’ ffs. Why are you so eager to defend a man who has ****ed you and every taxpayer in this state?

gandalf

simongurnick wrote: »

It's neither wrong nor twisted just different from yours. And it's slightly amusing you talk of the real world narrative through this virtual forum you choose to populate while people in the actual real world have already taken affirmative action.

No it's twisted. So affirmative action is the code word for thuggery and lawlessness then. It looks like they didn't realise the contractors were wearing bodycams. In the real world adults pay their bills you're welcome to join us when you mature.

pablo128

gandalf wrote: »

No it's twisted. So affirmative action is the code word for thuggery and lawlessness then. It looks like they didn't realise the contractors were wearing bodycams. In the real world adults pay their bills you're welcome to join us when you mature.

All those people defending the vigilantes would want to keep a days holiday spare in the new year so they can go up to the courthouse and support them when they appear.

simongurnick

Faugheen wrote: »

Honestly, you have literally zero argument to defend a man who refused to pay his debts for 9 years.

You don’t pay your debts, you lose your home. You refuse to leave the home at the order of the High Court, you get f*cked out of it.

‘Attacked’ ffs. Why are you so eager to defend a man who has ****ed you and every taxpayer in this state?

Because regardless of his past (and we've only heard one side of it by the way), I feel like hired goons dragging people out of their homes isn't the way to go and ultimately leads to situations like we've just witnessed, where people feel the need to take the law into their owns hands

ohnonotgmail

simongurnick wrote: »

Because regardless of his past (and we've only heard one side of it by the way), I feel like hired goons dragging people out of their homes isn't the way to go and ultimately leads to situations like we've just witnessed, where people feel the need to take the law into their owns hands

what is the way to go then? this case spent 9 years in the courts before a possession order was granted. the cute hoor ignored the possession order. He was given plenty of warning that the sheriff was coming. Should the sheriff have just shrugged his shoulders and gone home?

simongurnick

gandalf wrote: »

No it's twisted. So affirmative action is the code word for thuggery and lawlessness then. It looks like they didn't realise the contractors were wearing bodycams. In the real world adults pay their bills you're welcome to join us when you mature.

I pay all my bills. i just don't like when people think they can intimidate others and am glad to see when they get the type of response they got.

simongurnick

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is the way to go then? this case spent 9 years in the courts before a possession order was granted. the cute hoor ignored the possession order. He was given plenty of warning that the sheriff was coming. Should the sheriff have just shrugged his shoulders and gone home?

Maybe not, but bringing in goons from the north a couple weeks before Christmas wasn't the way to go either.

BattleCorp

simongurnick wrote: »

And what age was he again?

What difference does that make as long as he was over 18?

simongurnick

BattleCorp wrote: »

What difference does that make as long as he was over 18?

It was a joke in reference to the pedantic quarreling about whether they were deemed elderly or not a few pages back.

BattleCorp

simongurnick wrote: »

Because regardless of his past (and we've only heard one side of it by the way), I feel like hired goons dragging people out of their homes isn't the way to go and ultimately leads to situations like we've just witnessed, where people feel the need to take the law into their owns hands

How do you evict people who don't want to leave? You need to use hired goons as you call them. How else can you get them to vacate the property?