Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

GarIT

end of the road wrote: »

they didn't go after the bank's staff, but members of a private security firm contracted to cary out the eviction



that is often claimed but to be honest i'm not sure it has anything to do with it. if it was easy to evict people i think the rates would still remain high but who knows?

That's really being pedantic but if you insist we can go with that.

MrMusician18

MrMusician18 wrote: »

People wouldn't end up being evicted if they borrowed responsibly. In any case, eviction is really difficult in Ireland, with courts really reluctant to give these orders. In most cases you really have to be not engaging with the process or taking the absolute piss for such an order to be made.

It's one of the reasons why rates are so high here.

and the reason taxes are so high and cuts so deep is because of irresponsible bank lending

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not, I'm being very serious. Since I was a child I've always been the type to bully the bully. I don't like to see people being treated badly by anyone, it really annoys me.

Would you kill a dog though? that would really show them who is boss.

MrMusician18

MrMusician18 wrote: »

People wouldn't end up being evicted if they borrowed responsibly. In any case, eviction is really difficult in Ireland, with courts really reluctant to give these orders. In most cases you really have to be not engaging with the process or taking the absolute piss for such an order to be made.

It's one of the reasons why rates are so high here.

its also the reason why the late offer of a grand a month was for show only. if the order had been granted then they had their heads in the sand or their middle fingers up for a good long time and that offer was pure media 101 late in the game

simongurnick

[Deleted User] wrote: »

dyou have to be the only one? isnt being one of a handful in that state enough for you to admit that external forces werent the factor that had us so utterly f*cked? everyone else by and large managed. twas us and a few other basket cases getting our arses wiped for us by the grownups. you want to point to them and mutter that it wasnt only us? good grief.

clinging to external circumstances to absolve paddy of any responsibility for behaviour before, during and after is exactly the point.

its the mindset of a colonised nation. what the famine did to us. what the brits did on us. what the subprime lending bubble did on us. what the ecb did on us. what the nordie debt collectors did on us.

even the lurch towards focusing on the security firms identity is demonstrative of the self-removal from consequence of action.

Nonsense. You were making the point that what happened is quintessentially irish. It's not.

gandalf

Deleted User wrote: »

and the reason taxes are so high and cuts so deep is because of irresponsible bank lending

Our taxes aren't high ffs!

I agree on the cuts part but our taxes are middle of the road.

trixiebust

I lost my house through mortgage arrears a few months ago. It was the most stressful thing I've ever experienced & wouldn't wish it on anyone.

The boardsies all seem to have forgotten the banks illegal practices. Thoroughly applaud those people for sticking up for themselves & helping their neighbours. Well done to all involved.

blueythebear

Deleted User wrote: »

wow

ok, i`ll need to go a step back for you. I`ll do it, but just for you.
The were lending irresponsibly, they would not have gone bust if they were lending responsibly. Their Irish arm were making a loss due to this.

They would not have needed a bailout if they lent responsibly. People wouldnt be being evicted if they had of lent responsibly.

Did KBC Bank call round to the house and insist on giving them the loan ? Did they force them to take the loan. Personal responsibility comes in here.

If I buy a fancy car, should i expect to keep it when i can't repay the loan? Why is a house any different ?

Reckless lending is not an argument that holds any water here. The borrower sought a service and received it.

end of the road how come you thank posts advocating vigilantism on this thread this but are categorically against it anywhere else on here.

pablo128

I wonder if the 70 heroes with the bats be as quick to attack a travellers camp for burglarizing their neighbours?

cameramonkey

blueythebear wrote: »

Did KBC Bank call round to the house and insist on giving them the loan ? Did they force them to take the loan. Personal responsibility comes in here.

If I buy a fancy car, should i expect to keep it when i can't repay the loan? Why is a house any different ?

Reckless lending is not an argument that holds any water here. The borrower sought a service and received it.

Who was the borrower in this case?

GarIT

trixiebust wrote: »

I lost my house through mortgage arrears a few months ago. It was the most stressful thing I've ever experienced & wouldn't wish it on anyone.

The boardsies all seem to have forgotten the banks illegal practices. Thoroughly applaud those people for sticking up for themselves & helping their neighbours. Well done to all involved.

What do you suggest happens then. The banks broke the law so we stop repossessions. The banks likely stop lending, what then?

STB.

noodler wrote: »

Who wants to tell the Belgian taxpayer they aren't getting their money back because Irish people who voluntarily borrowed money from KBC reckon its fair game not to pay it back because of perceived issues with their lending practices?

That's about as relevant as discussing Irish taxpayers and unsecured bond holders.

Banks are cúnts. There was an awful lot of gambling going on between 2000 and 2006 and those gambling debts were covered by the Irish taxpayer. KBC made a net profit after tax of €113m for the first six months of this year. They recently sold just under €2 billion of non performing loans to Goldman Sachs, so lets say they are not in the halfpenny place.

Nobody disagrees that people must pay back their loans. I resent it myself! It was the manner in which they did it in this particular case that is under debate. There are many in this thread who are not getting that point.

blackbox

If they were third generation in the property, the loan must have been for investment or expansion.

If they didn't want to risk eviction why did they use house as security?

.

GarIT

pablo128 wrote: »

I wonder if the 70 heroes with the bats be as quick to attack a travellers camp for burglarizing their neighbours?

Nah, they don't beat themselves up over it

Guy:Incognito

cameramonkey wrote: »

Who was the borrower in this case?

Doesn't matter. If you out your property up as collateral that's on you. Long and short of it is don't put your home in someone else's hands.

pablo128

pablo128 wrote: »

I wonder if the 70 heroes with the bats be as quick to attack a travellers camp for burglarizing their neighbours?

EOTR wouldn't be as quick to praise them if they did anyway.

GarIT

STB. wrote: »

That's about as relevant as discussing Irish taxpayers and unsecured bond holders.


Banks are cúnts. KBC made a net profit after tax of €113m for the first six months of this year. They recently sold just under €2 billion of non performing loans to Goldman Sachs.


Nobody disagrees that people must pay back their loans. I resent it myself! It was the manner in which they did it in this particular case that is under debate. There are many in this thread who are not getting that point.

This wasn't the first attempt to repossess or the first time the people in the house got violent. They did it they way they had to.

simongurnick

blueythebear wrote: »

Did KBC Bank call round to the house and insist on giving them the loan ? Did they force them to take the loan. Personal responsibility comes in here.

If I buy a fancy car, should i expect to keep it when i can't repay the loan? Why is a house any different ?

Reckless lending is not an argument that holds any water here. The borrower sought a service and received it.

Have you lived under a rock for the last 15 years? The banks have the sole responsibility to determine if a person should be lent money.

simongurnick

simongurnick wrote: »

Nonsense. You were making the point that what happened is quintessentially irish. It's not.

beggin pardon squire

i was makin the point squire that notwithstanding the buffets of being a small open economy we make things much harder on ourselves by giving ourselves free passes from behaving like a nation reponsible for running our own affairs.

its systemic and it is entirely relevant to the case in point.

now if youre going to say 'nonsense' again whilst ignoring the substantive point i shall be inconsolable so please squire be kind

simongurnick

GarIT wrote: »

This wasn't the first attempt to repossess or the first time the people in the house got violent. They did it they way they had to.

And they got their comeuppance

Guy:Incognito

simongurnick wrote: »

The banks have the sole responsibility to determine if a person should be lent money.

Yes, and when the person has collateral to cover the loan that offsets the risk. The problem only arises when the person refuses to give up said collateral when they are legally obliged to.

cameramonkey

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Doesn't matter. If you out your property up as collateral that's on you. Long and short of it is don't put your home in someone else's hands.

who put their property in other peoples hands as collateral?

eagle eye

GarIT wrote:

I think Roscommon has just gone to ****e. I don't know anywhere else where two burglars can attack a Gardaí and 700 go on a march because the burglars got hurt when the guard defended himself

I can tell you with 100 % certainty that these two men were not burglars. In fact neither of them have ever committed a crime in their lives.
There was a burglar who committed a crime in the area on the day after just being released from jail in Castlerea. I've been told that he had been arrested quite a while before this incident took place.
The problem these two gentleman have is that they had drank alcohol before this incident happened which puts the Garda at an advantage as to who is telling the truth.
I've been told that the older gentleman ended up with two broken jaws. I was also told that the younger man ran into the house of someone he knew and asked them to call the Gardaí as he was afraid he was going to kill his friend. He then went back out and attempted to restrain the Garda until his colleagues arrived.
These two lads are local men who have never been in trouble in their lives. One is in his mid thirties, the other in his sixties.
I'm not saying that all the above lis what actually happened, it's the other side of the story and the reason that there were protests in Castlerea. These two men would be very well respected in their locality.

MrMusician18

STB. wrote: »

That's about as relevant as discussing Irish taxpayers and unsecured bond holders.

Banks are cúnts. There was an awful lot of gambling going on between 2000 and 2006 and those gambling debts were covered by the Irish taxpayer. KBC made a net profit after tax of €113m for the first six months of this year. They recently sold just under €2 billion of non performing loans to Goldman Sachs, so lets say they are not in the halfpenny place.

Nobody disagrees that people must pay back their loans. I resent it myself! It was the manner in which they did it in this particular case that is under debate. There are many in this thread who are not getting that point.

How exactly do you enforce a court order on those that refuse to leave?

I don't argue that the bank were heavy handed with their last approach but I can't see what other option they had when all else had failed? Just leave them there?

simongurnick

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yes, and when the person has collateral to cover the loan that offsets the risk. The problem only arises when the person refuses to give up said collateral when they are legally obliged to.

Collateral is the worst case scenario though. So many things come before that like debt equity ratios etc. If the bank is mainly relying on reclaiming assets to secure their loans then they basically become your local dodgy money lender.

simongurnick

simongurnick wrote: »

Banks will charge a specific subset of society higher for loans? What are you on about?

Exactly.

That would never happen. Nonsense to even suggest the banks would treat anyone differently, or make them pay more if they think they're a riskier gamble.


Anyway, I'm off to get insurance on my 15 year old car...

STB.

GarIT wrote: »

This wasn't the first attempt to repossess or the first time the people in the house got violent. They did it they way they had to.

They managed to do a little more than that. Retired Garda Kevin Taylor - a friend of the McGann family claimed he was assaulted and punched “20 or 30 times” by aggressive bailiffs hired by KBC Bank on Tuesday.

KBC engaged what now appears to be a shady NI outfit that managed to stir up the local community. It was reckless and irresponsible of the bank and AGS should have advised of potential backlash. How many successful and peaceful evictions occur on a daily basis ?

There are now all kinds of criminal investigations pending.

blueythebear

cameramonkey wrote: »

Who was the borrower in this case?

Someone referred to it as being the nephew with the owners of the property being guarantors for the loan. I can't see that this is correct. It doesn't add up on many fronts but fundamentally it would be monumentally naive for someone to put their house up as collateral for another persons borrowing.

simongurnick

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Exactly.

That would never happen. Nonsense to even suggest the banks would treat anyone differently, or make them pay more if they think they're a riskier gamble.


Anyway, I'm off to get insurance on my 15 year old car...

That was central to a lot of irresponsible lending....oh, you may not be able to repay this debt??? So let's charge even more then!