Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

end of the road

gandalf wrote: »

If they weren't on display and they should have been then it should be looked at. However does it change the fact that the debtor's are unable to service or discharge their debt to the bank?

no but then again the debters being supposibly unable to service the debt really isn't the discussion of the thread from what i can see, more the people involved in carying out the eviction.

blueythebear

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

That's not a good reason at all.

A good reason not to show it might be a sensible operational reason eg you're on duty as an undercover store detective.

That's your opinion as to whether it's a good reason. I'm simply citing it as a reason that might be proffered by the security guards in question. Whether it's reasonable or not is a matter to be decided by a judge, not an internet forum.

However, it is a possible explanation for no badges (and I don't know if there were or were not any visible badges) but it is also a completely irrelevant sideshow.

This was a Court Order executed by the Sheriff and an Garda Siochana were present at the time. It was completely within the law to evict these people regardless of PSA identity badges.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

Not really elderly. Two mid 50's and the other early 60's

Anybody over 50 is elderly - never mind this "50 is the new 15" bollocks.

...

Lefty Bicek

gandalf wrote: »

You did not read what I said did you.

If it's wrong that no ID was visible then those individuals should be dealt with to the full extent of the applicable law.

That's better. Though not really what you said first time.

It's an important subject in it's own right.

No need for whataboutery as to the debtor's obligation, as if that were more important.

STB.

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Are you ambivalent about the law being enforced by people who don't enforce the law ?

If you are, your opinion about anything else is worthless.

I know your question isnt directed at me but I think its obvious that there is an issue of overreach hiring in security that self identify as British in Northern Irish accents. It only inflamed an already intense eviction.


Security involved in the execution of High Court orders are not licensable by the Private Security Authority at present and thats why it was allowed to happen. The escalation in this case was inevitable, and could have been avoided. A lot could have been foreseen, especially by those there to uphold the law and maintain the peace.

gandalf

end of the road wrote: »

no but then again the debters being supposibly unable to service the debt really isn't the discussion of the thread from what i can see, more the people involved in carying out the eviction.

No it is central to this whole situation. They couldn't service the debt, the bank have a judgement against them. They weren't leaving....what are the banks options then? Walk away....

Lefty Bicek

blueythebear wrote: »

However, it is a possible explanation for no badges (and I don't know if there were or were not any visible badges) but it is also a completely irrelevant sideshow.

Well, it isn't really.

More like the thin end of the wedge.

noodler

Scary the comments on FB.

Everyone supportive of the vigilante action and half of them makigg UI comments.

I do worry, what the country will come to if all the mortgage payers end up paying more because those who won't pay end up getting a free ride.

I feel for the brothers and sisters living there etc but how have they gotten themselves to this situation? It can only have taken years.

I really feel the fact these people were from the North is really muddying the waters here.

Is it OK for a republican firm to take back a bank's property? Is it OK to repossess if its an Irish Bank the taxpayer saved and is therefore losing money on if someone continues to live in a property mortgage free?

These questions are being left completely byt the wayside in some social media call to "rise up". But rise up to what? No evictions, ever? The enrichment of those with houses who don't pay to the detriment of those that do or worse still those that do not yet have mortgages?

I wish our country thought more.

Skylinehead

Deleted User wrote: »

Anybody over 50 is elderly - never mind this "50 is the new 15" bollocks.

...

Ah here. 15 years+ until retirement, there's no way 50 is elderly. The UN says 65+ is "old age".

Lefty Bicek

STB. wrote: »

I know your question isnt directed at me but I think its obvious that there is an issue of overreach hiring in security that self identify as British in Northern Irish accents. It only inflamed an already intense eviction.


Security involved in the execution of High Court orders are not licensable by the Private Security Authority at present and thats why it was allowed to happen. The escalation in this case was inevitable, and could have been avoided. A lot could have been foreseen, especially by those there to uphold the law and maintain the peace.

Quality information. Thank you.

riemann

nice_guy80 wrote: »

If any of ye knew the history of Strokestown and the area in relation to evictions during the 19th century you would understand the strong feelings of a family being turned out of their home (owing money or not)

People don't forget these things in rural areas.

Major Mahon learned the hard way.

https://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/the-murder-of-major-mahon-strokestown-county-roscommon-1847/

blueythebear

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Well, it isn't really.

More like the thin end of the wedge.

I would think that mob rule running rough shod over the authority of the High Court would be more like the thin end of the wedge actually.

Or possibly, borrowers being allowed to not repay their debts yet retain the property they pledged as security for the loan. They are far more alarming in the context of that saying to my mind

gandalf

Nixonbot wrote: »

Ah here. 15 years+ until retirement, there's no way 50 is elderly. The UN says 65+ is "old age".

It suits a certain agenda to push the elderly falsehood.

kurtainsider

Jeff2 wrote: »

If I get a bank loan then I have to pay it back.
If that lone is secured by the farm I own then the bank have a right to take that if I default on the lone.
Both sides are bad in this case.


How the hell are people saying that people that are not paying should still allowed stay there.

Jeff. your points are valid and as a taxpayer in this country I have to agree with you up to a point.

What you miss entirely however is the historical sensitivity of a people who were abused and blackguarded by outsiders for a long long time.

Strokestown Co Roscommon was a town where the people were particularly badly treated during the famine by outsiders and presumably haven't forgotten it.

So when a bunch of thugs identifying themselves as British turn up to throw people out of their homes the results are fairly predictable.

I imagine that the person at KBC who arranged for the UDA (sorry, ex UDA) to carry out this eviction wasn't up to speed on their history.

We're a very tolerant people (see the Irish water protests versus the gilets jaunes) but there is a point where our tolerance is tested too far.

I live a long way from Roscommon and pay my two mortgages but FAIR PLAY TO STROKESTOWN. You have support in Tipperary.

I hope that the guards who collaborated in this attack on citizens by outsiders will think carefully before supporting the (ex) UDA on further missions in the Republic

Omackeral

andekwarhola wrote: »

To be fair, if it is true that your man is running the firm, it'd be pretty naive to completely rule out that there's no loyalists involved.

That is fair.

andekwarhola wrote: »

Especially if one of them is on the video making a point of saying they're British.

Also in the interest of fairness though would be to admit he's responding to an assertation that he's Irish when he's not.

animaal

animaal wrote: »

If any of the security personnel have broken the law (e.g. by not being registered etc) they need to be brought to court.

Likewise, the mob needs to be dealt with harshly.

Lastly, I don't want to be landed with paying for future loans to people who don't think they need to be paid back. Banks need to stop giving loans to farmers from counties with a record of this type of behaviour.

If these people feel the banks are so bad, then stop borrowing from them. Problem solved.

LOL The banks should stop borrowing from us

Jeff2

Banks answer to share holders.
Anyone that has those shares wants money.


KBC and this farm is just accounts sorting

Fann Linn

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

IDG security firm, owned by an ex uda member.

Lovely. Gardai backing up loyalists.

Omackeral

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

That's not a good reason at all.

Gardai simply doing their job at the Summerhill eviction may disagree with you there. Their families might too.

Guy:Incognito

nice_guy80 wrote: »

If any of ye knew the history of Strokestown and the area in relation to evictions during the 19th century you would understand the strong feelings of a family being turned out of their home (owing money or not)

People don't forget these things in rural areas.

So when they're going for their mortgages and loans, do they tell the banks the history and that if they cant pay the money back the banks can just **** off and deal with it because some **** went down 150 years ago so they won't be giving up the land they are signing over as collateral?

Cos that might be some pertinent information the bank could do with having when making a decision.

Guy:Incognito

Mrsmum wrote: »

Poster's point was that farm loans are very different from household mortgages and in fairness he was way closer to the truth that your suggestion of "completely untrue". In fact he may be 100% correct depending on the bank.

Are we all in agreement that the bank have all the facts and know what they are at when dealing with farm loans, yeah? So k how full well when it's time to call time on a loan that's not going anywhere and take the land.

Lefty Bicek

blueythebear wrote: »

I would think that mob rule running rough shod over the authority of the High Court would be more like the thin end of the wedge actually.

Or possibly, borrowers being allowed to not repay their debts yet retain the property they pledged as security for the loan. They are far more alarming in the context of that saying to my mind

Clearly, you think the rights of banks and the state are more important than the protections that we all have a right to expect from the state and it's agents, if we should ever fall into misfortune.

blueythebear

kurtainsider wrote: »

Jeff. your points are valid and as a taxpayer in this country I have to agree with you up to a point.

What you miss entirely however is the historical sensitivity of a people who were abused and blackguarded by outsiders for a long long time.

Strokestown Co Roscommon was a town where the people were particularly badly treated during the famine by outsiders and presumably haven't forgotten it.

So when a bunch of thugs identifying themselves as British turn up to throw people out of their homes the results are fairly predictable.

I imagine that the person at KBC who arranged for the UDA (sorry, ex UDA) to carry out this eviction wasn't up to speed on their history.

We're a very tolerant people (see the Irish water protests versus the gilets jaunes) but there is a point where our tolerance is tested too far.

I live a long way from Roscommon and pay my two mortgages but FAIR PLAY TO STROKESTOWN. You have support in Tipperary.

I hope that the guards who collaborated in this attack on citizens by outsiders will think carefully before supporting the (ex) UDA on further missions in the Republic

Referencing an event that took place over 150 years ago is no defence of this type of carry on. I had thought that the country had gotten over the Famine. Maybe I was wrong.

P_1

I'll just leave this here. Remember that capatilism is just one giant pyramid scheme and we're the saps that keep the wheel spinning

https://twitter.com/hermit_hwarang/status/1070711611701256193?s=19

kurtainsider

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So when they're going for their mortgages and loans, do they tell the banks the history and that if they cant pay the money back the banks can just **** off and deal with it because some **** went down 150 years ago so they won't be giving up the land they are signing over as collateral?

Cos that might be some pertinent information the bank could do with having when making a decision.

Hello Guy:Incognito.
You're obviously a bit behind in you understanding of Irish history. I'm sure that there's plenty of information on Wikipedia about it - would you consider taking a look at it at all?

riemann

blueythebear wrote: »

Referencing an event that took place over 150 years ago is no defence of this type of carry on. I had thought that the country had gotten over the Famine. Maybe I was wrong.

I suspect being wrong is something you are familiar with.

gandalf

kurtainsider wrote: »

Jeff. your points are valid and as a taxpayer in this country I have to agree with you up to a point.

What you miss entirely however is the historical sensitivity of a people who were abused and blackguarded by outsiders for a long long time.

Strokestown Co Roscommon was a town where the people were particularly badly treated during the famine by outsiders and presumably haven't forgotten it.

So when a bunch of thugs identifying themselves as British turn up to throw people out of their homes the results are fairly predictable.

I imagine that the person at KBC who arranged for the UDA (sorry, ex UDA) to carry out this eviction wasn't up to speed on their history.

We're a very tolerant people (see the Irish water protests versus the gilets jaunes) but there is a point where our tolerance is tested too far.

I live a long way from Roscommon and pay my two mortgages but FAIR PLAY TO STROKESTOWN. You have support in Tipperary.

I hope that the guards who collaborated in this attack on citizens by outsiders will think carefully before supporting the (ex) UDA on further missions in the Republic

So because an area was visited by tragedy and cruelty a 150 years ago its inhabitants now get a free pass on servicing their debts.

Who carried out the eviction is a side show tbh. Evictions are horrible events so I doubt anyone carrying out action like that would be acceptable. As someone already said would a bunch of provos be more acceptable?

Does it justify a load of thugs to take the law into their own hands? No absolutely not.

I feel for the debtor's but they took the loan out and all the obligations of it and the consequences of not paying that debt.

Guy:Incognito

STB. wrote: »

Security involved in the execution of High Court orders are not licensable by the Private Security Authority at present and thats why it was allowed to happen. .

That can be an end to the psa licence ****e and nothing was amiss. So people can move on from it and stop using it as their excuse to avoid the issue of the people not paying their loans and having their farm repossessed.

Skylinehead

kurtainsider wrote: »

Hello Guy:Incognito.
You're obviously a bit behind in you understanding of Irish history. I'm sure that there's plenty of information on Wikipedia about it - would you consider taking a look at it at all?

Stop being so condescending.

blueythebear

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Clearly, you think the rights of banks and the state are more important than the protections that we all have a right to expect from the state and it's agents, if we should ever fall into misfortune.

It is the High Court that you go to vindicate those same rights so a mob openly defying court orders will simply result in Court orders being ignored...

I don't believe that the Banks rights outweigh those of the individual, but there is no fundamental right that allows you to breach a contract and not face the contractually agreed consequences. In entering the contract in the first place, you agree of your own volition to having some of your rights to be interefered with.