Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

ohnonotgmail

simongurnick wrote: »

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

So you agree he should be removed from the property? the place of birth of the people doing it is irrelevant.

BattleCorp

simongurnick wrote: »

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

Apologies.

weldoninhio

simongurnick wrote: »

And what age was he again?

53 and he was not a resident of the house so was not being evicted. He was there to cause a nuisance.

weldoninhio

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?

If it’s my home I’d be onto the superintendent and GSOC if the local Gardaí wouldn’t protect it. If it was the banks house, id be long gone.

gandalf

gandalf wrote: »

In the real world adults pay their bills you're welcome to join us when you mature.

Must say I had a wry chuckle reading that in the week where its been reported that the junior bondholders of Anglo-Irish are getting their dosh back and most of the 30 billion the government put in will most likely be never seen again.

simongurnick

BattleCorp wrote: »

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?

Well, my approach would be not to involve private security firms at all. From what I understand there is limited if any regulation on these firms today.
If the court provides an eviction order then the bailiff should present it and provide the current occupiers reasonable time to vacate. If they have not vacated at that time then they are in breach of a court order, which is a criminal offence, so then call the Gardai and allow them to handle the situation in a manner which they are trained to do.

simongurnick

BattleCorp wrote: »

Apologies.

lol, no worries. Comments are flying pretty fast on this thread!

Thatnastyboy

simongurnick wrote: »

Well, my approach would be not to involve private security firms at all. From what I understand there is limited if any regulation on these firms today.
If the court provides an eviction order then the bailiff should present it and provide the current occupiers reasonable time to vacate. If they have not vacated at that time then they are in breach of a court order, which is a criminal offence, so then call the Gardai and allow them to handle the situation in a manner which they are trained to do.

And then you'll have "gettin the gardai to do the dirty work for the banks" being roared from behind hi vis vests. "nothin but bullies for the big banks" "debt collectors" etc. etc.


Will you just give it up, this "just before christmas" nonsense too, deflective bullcrap is all it is. Who cares whether it's december, may or september, the man had 9 years to get himself in order and he made no attempt. It's nearly a shame he didn't actually get a beating, wouldn't be undeserved.

What was done was right, bar the optics, but optics are just that, we work to the law in this country, no need to pander to armchair republicans.

simongurnick

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So you agree he should be removed from the property? the place of birth of the people doing it is irrelevant.

It is relevant though. An eviction is very sensitive as we all know and should be handled in a manner least likely to cause an eruption of emotion/violence etc. A security firm from the north is basically the last group you would want to use to perform an eviction in the west of ireland. It would be like the KKK evicting a black family in Mississippi. Amazing lack of foresight from those involved.

simongurnick

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

And then you'll have "gettin the gardai to do the dirty work for the banks" being roared from behind hi vis vests. "nothin but bullies for the big banks" "debt collectors" etc. etc.


Will you just give it up, this "just before christmas" nonsense too, deflective bullcrap is all it is. Who cares whether it's december, may or september, the man had 9 years to get himself in order and he made no attempt. It's nearly a shame he didn't actually get a beating, wouldn't be undeserved.

What was done was right, bar the optics, but optics are just that, we work to the law in this country, no need to pander to armchair republicans.

Seems a little hypocritical, no?

Thatnastyboy

simongurnick wrote: »

Seems a little hypocritical, no?

Completely hypocritical yeah - had to leave something in there for you to reply to, I've noticed most sensible replies in this thread get ignored.



Any response to the rest?

ohnonotgmail

simongurnick wrote: »

It is relevant though. An eviction is very sensitive as we all know and should be handled in a manner least likely to cause an eruption of emotion/violence etc. A security firm from the north is basically the last group you would want to use to perform an eviction in the west of ireland. It would be like the KKK evicting a black family in Mississippi. Amazing lack of foresight from those involved.

the only eruption of emotion and violence was from those opposed to the eviction. Or to any evictions most likely.

gandalf

simongurnick wrote: »

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.

Why do you pay your bills if you condone the behaviour of McGann? He's not someone who got a mortgage in good faith and couldn't pay it because of illness or unemployment is he? He didn't bother to engage with the bank at all. What does the bank do then? Walk away?

blanch152

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.

This is completely false.

If the Government were to release Mr. McGann's revenue file to the public to explain why they thought he was a complete conman, you would be the first in here crying and screaming about data protection and invasion of privacy.

We see it all the time. A Margaret Cash or a McGann makes a public complaint about their inhuman treatment at the hands of the gubberment but the government can't reply in detail because of the requirements of privacy.

So you are posting complete nonsense when you say they are in prime position to defend themselves.

blanch152

simongurnick wrote: »

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

You didn't answer the question

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?

Explain in simple language how a man who has refused to pay his mortgage for nine years and refused to leave his house despite the Sheriff serving notice on seven different occasions be treated?

blanch152

simongurnick wrote: »

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

Only saw this post now. Should have guessed that this serious issue was only a joke to you.

blanch152

simongurnick wrote: »

Well, my approach would be not to involve private security firms at all. From what I understand there is limited if any regulation on these firms today.
If the court provides an eviction order then the bailiff should present it and provide the current occupiers reasonable time to vacate. If they have not vacated at that time then they are in breach of a court order, which is a criminal offence, so then call the Gardai and allow them to handle the situation in a manner which they are trained to do.

Are the Gardai empowered to enforce civil orders?

If they are, why is there a Sheriff system?

Please explain by reference to the relevant legislation?

If you can't explain why, using the relevant legislation, should I assume you don't know what you are talking about?

simongurnick

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

Completely hypocritical yeah - had to leave something in there for you to reply to, I've noticed most sensible replies in this thread get ignored.



Any response to the rest?

Well, I think the optics are very important and if someone had considered them ahead of time we may not be in this sorry mess, which really has no winners at the end of the day. The bank haven't got their money or the house and are dealing with a PR disaster, the farmer is in an even bigger mess than he was and the poor ol dog is dead.

simongurnick

gandalf wrote: »

Why do you pay your bills if you condone the behaviour of McGann? He's not someone who got a mortgage in good faith and couldn't pay it because of illness or unemployment is he? He didn't bother to engage with the bank at all. What does the bank do then? Walk away?

Where did I condone McGann's behaviour? I firmly believe people should honour their commitments. My issue in this case is the manner in which the eviction was carried out. I don't agree with heavy handed intimidation.

end of the road

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

And then you'll have "gettin the gardai to do the dirty work for the banks" being roared from behind hi vis vests. "nothin but bullies for the big banks" "debt collectors" etc. etc.


Will you just give it up, this "just before christmas" nonsense too, deflective bullcrap is all it is. Who cares whether it's december, may or september, the man had 9 years to get himself in order and he made no attempt. It's nearly a shame he didn't actually get a beating, wouldn't be undeserved.

What was done was right, bar the optics, but optics are just that, we work to the law in this country, no need to pander to armchair republicans.

so be it, it's way way preferible then goons. the gardai are the legitimate law enforcers of the state, when doing their job they act as security for all of us
it isn't a shame he didn't get a beating, we don't have beatings as a prescribed punishment for non-payment of owed money, and such beatings would be undeserved.

simongurnick

blanch152 wrote: »

You didn't answer the question



Explain in simple language how a man who has refused to pay his mortgage for nine years and refused to leave his house despite the Sheriff serving notice on seven different occasions be treated?

I explained that above to another poster. I don't recall you answered my question though.

simongurnick

blanch152 wrote: »

Are the Gardai empowered to enforce civil orders?

If they are, why is there a Sheriff system?

Please explain by reference to the relevant legislation?

If you can't explain why, using the relevant legislation, should I assume you don't know what you are talking about?

I was asked what approach I would take, I gave you my response. I wasn't asked to explain what the current legislation is. Maybe you should take a second to breath and actually read the posts.
I also never said the Gardai should enforce the civil order, but when an order is breached and it becomes a criminal matter then the Gardai should be involved

Thatnastyboy

simongurnick wrote: »

Well, I think the optics are very important and if someone had considered them ahead of time we may not be in this sorry mess, which really has no winners at the end of the day. The bank haven't got their money or the house and are dealing with a PR disaster, the farmer is in an even bigger mess than he was and the poor ol dog is dead.

I think the man at the centre of this, who caused the incident in it's complete and utter entirety should have considered the optics first. But I do completely agree, getting a shady outfit down from the North was not the best way about it, but it was not illegal or anything like it.

end of the road wrote: »

so be it, it's way way preferible then goons. the gardai are the legitimate law enforcers of the state, when doing their job they act as security for all of us
it isn't a shame he didn't get a beating, we don't have beatings as a prescribed punishment for non-payment of owed money, and such beatings would be undeserved.

Bullcrap, the same people outraged by this will be the same people shouting about how the garda shouldnt be involved in private civil matters, and they shouldn't be throwing good irish people out of their homes for foreign banks. The permanently outraged will just find another angle to latch on to, you know it & I know it.

I also already clarified that I was baiting with that comment, it didn't really work though - as everyone seems to be focusing on the sacrificial anode.

weldoninhio

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

I think the man at the centre of this, who caused the incident in it's complete and utter entirety should have considered the optics first. But I do completely agree, getting a shady outfit down from the North was not the best way about it, but it was not illegal or anything like it.







Bullcrap, the same people outraged by this will be the same people shouting about how the garda shouldnt be involved in private civil matters, and they shouldn't be throwing good irish people out of their homes for foreign banks. The permanently outraged will just find another angle to latch on to, you know it & I know it.

I also already clarified that I was baiting with that comment, it didn't really work though - as everyone seems to be focusing on the sacrificial anode.

A shady outfit?? They are a registered company.

Thatnastyboy

weldoninhio wrote: »

A shady outfit?? They are a registered company.

Optics only.

I don't personally have a problem with the outfit that was used, but I am able to see why so many people are outraged, whether they are correct in their outrage or not - emotive situations being handled in a way that mobilises angry people are best avoided.


Perceptively shady is probably a better term.

goat2

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

Optics only.

I don't personally have a problem with the outfit that was used, but I am able to see why so many people are outraged, whether they are correct in their outrage or not - emotive situations being handled in a way that mobilises angry people are best avoided.


Perceptively shady is probably a better term.

I am more upset for the sister and brother that were also residing in the home,
Not the person that brought the trouble on himself, he should have known that they would be the biggest losers on all of this.
They may not have known that there was this problem until the bailiffs came and put them out,
Now what is their future going to be if the lot is taken from them,

blackwhite

simongurnick wrote: »

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

And yet again the dog-whistle goes out to try and summon the knuckle-draggers :rolleyes:

gandalf

Deleted User wrote: »

Must say I had a wry chuckle reading that in the week where its been reported that the junior bondholders of Anglo-Irish are getting their dosh back and most of the 30 billion the government put in will most likely be never seen again.

I don't agree with that myself but it has nothing to do with this. If that's your logic we should all stop paying our bills and then where would we be.

Thatnastyboy

goat2 wrote: »

I am more upset for the sister and brother that were also residing in the home,
Not the person that brought the trouble on himself, he should have known that they would be the biggest losers on all of this.
They may not have known that there was this problem until the bailiffs came and put them out,
Now what is their future going to be if the lot is taken from them,

Only one person to blame unfortunately - The person who had told them they could live in someone elses house...


The sheriff had visited plenty times before last Tuesday mind, but that does not guarantee the other 2 people haven't been insulated from the reality in its entirety.

blackwhite

end of the road wrote: »

so be it, it's way way preferible then goons. the gardai are the legitimate law enforcers of the state, when doing their job they act as security for all of us
it isn't a shame he didn't get a beating, we don't have beatings as a prescribed punishment for non-payment of owed money, and such beatings would be undeserved.

But according to the usual shower on here, as well as at least one Sinn Féin representative - beatings for legally enforcing a High Court judgement are completely legitimate.