Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

ceegee

eagle eye wrote: »

Since if some guy owes you money you would be ok with sending thugs to retrieve it?

If someone refused to leave your house would you forcibly remove them?

gandalf

eagle eye wrote: »

Since if some guy owes you money you would be ok with sending thugs to retrieve it?

I thought you said you agreed with the eviction just not the "tools" used to do the eviction.

If all avenues have been exhausted then something has to give. As stated before the occupants knew they have a High Court judgement against them, they refused to leave therefore they had to realise they were going to be forcibly removed. What did they expect lads turning up and tickling them till they agreed to leave.

Guy:Incognito

PARlance wrote: »

What do want to do when you grow up Johnny?
Evict people from their houses* Daddy

*never have I been prouder of my ordinary, decent young lad*

*the banks houses.


If they paid for them they'd be their houses and no one would be evicting them.

Let the emotive horse**** deflection continue. On you go......

gandalf

eagle eye wrote: »

How do you know that ordinary, decent people wouldn't be interested in the job?
Did you ever think that somebody mightnb capable of getting them out without resorting to using thugs?

Well if people commenting on a Facebook thread are getting threats with a picture of their family home in it I can just imagine what sort of bile that would be levied at anyone working as a sub contractor doing the actual evictions.

eagle eye

Guy:Incognito wrote:

But sure you go ahead and keep deflecting and going on about " da brits" if that's what helps you with your issues.

Again, and I've made this clear, I've no issue with Brits but understand that lots of people do.
I have a problem with thugs being hired to carry out a high court order.

ceegee

eagle eye wrote: »

How do you know that ordinary, decent people wouldn't be interested in the job?
Did you ever think that somebody mightnb capable of getting them out without resorting to using thugs?

They tried that, they got a judgement from the court. The tax cheat ignored it.

Guy:Incognito

eagle eye wrote: »

Again, and I've made this clear, I've no issue with Brits but understand that lots of people do.
I have a problem with thugs being hired to carry out a high court order.

You keep using the term thugs like it's valid or makes your opinions valid.

How can they be thugs yet Irish people doing the same thing wouldn't be?

eagle eye

ceegee wrote:

They tried that, they got a judgement from the court. The tax cheat ignored it.

We don't need thugs to carry out a high court order.

PARlance

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

*the banks houses.


If they paid for them they'd be their houses and no one would be evicting them.

Let the emotive horse**** deflection continue. On you go......

Woah there Champ.

The post was poking fun at people looking for "ordinary decent people" to carry out evictions. I'm on the same side as you but untwist those knickers.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

We don't need thugs to carry out a high court order.

Owe big money and disobey a high court order like this and you are playing big boy games.

I saw people thrown out more roughly when I worked in bars in Dublin.

markodaly

eagle eye wrote: »

If they sent Irish born honest, decent black men to do the job I wouldn't have a problem with it.
There goes your racism theory.
If it's bigoted to be anti-thugs then call me a bigot all day everyday.

What if they were born in Poland or the UK or France, but are Irish nationals? Not good enough? Do they have to show a birth cert to you?

You're not a bigot because you are anti-thug, you are a bigot because of your 'Irish born' statement that you wrote earlier.

relax carry on

eagle eye wrote: »

We don't need thugs to carry out a high court order.

Do you agree that a court order existed for the eviction and that the three should have peacefully surrendered possession. Please don't go down the route of exploring other options at this stage as to get the court order all other options had been exhausted. A simple yes or no will suffice.

If your argument is just a general case of a foreign company carrying out a contract in Ireland then that's a different argument all together. You should consider raising your concerns with your local TD about foreign companies operating here.

Breaking news: emerging images of an impromptu memorial service for Butch/Fido/Spot or whatever his name was.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Jaysus I've seen some car crash threads in my time but this is definitely up there with the worst.

Ush1

Boggles wrote: »

I imagine you wouldn't knock his teeth out?

Strange analogy.

Who got their teeth knocked out?

MrMusician18

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Jaysus I've seen some car crash threads in my time but this is definitely up there with the worst.

What's particularly bad about this, one side has the law on their side, the other has the mob.

seamus

eagle eye wrote: »

We don't need thugs to carry out a high court order.

The problem here is that if you were to use Gardai, how would that look?

What would that do for the public impression of the Gardai if they were to be seen "dragging old people out of their homes before Xmas!". What would it do for their morale.

I agree that companies shouldn't resort to having to hire people to enforce their right to a court-ordered settlement.

This should be the function of a specific agency attached to the courts whose job it is to take possession of a property, forcefully evicting residents where necessary.

The UK have them, and it's a horrible job that should never be required, but the fact that people will ignore high court orders is what makes it necessary.

But this agency doesn't exist, so unfortunately private companies DO need to hire thugs to evict people from the company's property.


If you want to direct your protest somewhere, ask the Government why private citizens have to pay to enforce legal orders and why the state isn't doing it for them?

Boggles

Ush1 wrote: »

Who got their teeth knocked out?

The retired guard apparently.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What's particularly bad about this, one side has the law on their side, the other has the mob.

What abouttery to beat the band, lads completely missing the point of issue and pictures of dogs memorial sevices? All we're missing is the reference to the nazis / Hitler.

Full disclosure : the previous home owner was obviously a tax dodger of the highest order and should have been evicted months ago. But Ireland, and rural Ireland in particular, seems to love these "cute hoors". See the messing that's going on in cavan with current Quinn group executives being terrorized by the local community as another example.

eagle eye

markodaly wrote:

You're not a bigot because you are anti-thug, you are a bigot because of your 'Irish born' statement that you wrote earlier.

And you are clueless because you can't understand how anybody could view things differently to you.

markodaly

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

What abouttery to beat the band, lads completely missing the point of issue and pictures of dogs memorial sevices? All we're missing is the reference to the nazis / Hitler.

Full disclosure : the previous home owner was obviously a tax dodger of the highest order and should have been evicted months ago. But Ireland, and rural Ireland in particular, seems to love these "cute hoors". See the messing that's going on in cavan with current Quinn group executives being terrorized by the local community as another example.

What happened here?

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

What happened here?

There has been a long string of incidents, accidents and threats.

https://www.anglocelt.ie/news/roundup/articles/2018/10/31/4164352-fresh-attack-targeting-qih-boss/

Homer

Boggles wrote: »

The retired guard apparently.

Oh well, play stupid games .. win stupid prizes.

Boggles

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Full disclosure : the previous home owner was obviously a tax dodger of the highest order

Yeah. Between him and Apple they owe 13 billion and 400k.

:pac:

gandalf

markodaly wrote: »

What happened here?

This sort of stuff.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/quinn-execs-advised-not-to-park-outside-homes-following-third-arson-attack-in-two-months-37489887.html

Directors and executives of Quinn Industrial Holdings have been advised by gardai not to park their cars in front of their homes, after the third arson attack in two months at the homes of key figures in the company.

frosty123

i see the "rent a riot mob" have moved from water protests to evictions

can people not see them for what they are.. a bunch of far left anarchists who are too quick with their fists/baseball bats

they're vigilantes with extreme republican leanings

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah. Between him and Apple they owe 13 billion and 400k.

:pac:

Despite the government and Apple not believing that money was owed Apple paid the 13 billion when ordered.

Has this fella paid us yet?

Guy:Incognito

Ush1 wrote: »

Who got their teeth knocked out?

Probably the 108 year old pensioner in the wheelchair that was in the house since famine time that the evil bank want to take because of the €8.75 he owes but can't pay back because of how expensive Christmas is.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

The problem here is that if you were to use Gardai, how would that look?

What would that do for the public impression of the Gardai if they were to be seen "dragging old people out of their homes before Xmas!". What would it do for their morale.

I agree that companies shouldn't resort to having to hire people to enforce their right to a court-ordered settlement.

This should be the function of a specific agency attached to the courts whose job it is to take possession of a property, forcefully evicting residents where necessary.

The UK have them, and it's a horrible job that should never be required, but the fact that people will ignore high court orders is what makes it necessary.

But this agency doesn't exist, so unfortunately private companies DO need to hire thugs to evict people from the company's property.


If you want to direct your protest somewhere, ask the Government why private citizens have to pay to enforce legal orders and why the state isn't doing it for them?

Having a public body to enforce court orders sounds like a good idea - are there any examples from elsewhere.

They would become the objects of a lot of abuse though - the Sherriff of Nottingham Roscommon might go down in history.

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

They would become the objects of a lot of abuse though - the Sherriff of Nottingham Roscommon might go down in history.

There was a sheriff in every county about sometime in the last 35 years iirc.