Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

Jeff2

If someone was not paying tax/vat to the value of 177k then how much did they make.
Plus not paying mortgage or a supplier.

Not poor or old.

0cp71eyxkb94qf

Omackeral wrote: »

How does that even make sense? I don't want to accept your invitation to debate in real life. It's weird. It's odd.

You called me a keyboard warrior. Therefore i offered a real life debate. Its that simple. You're a bona fide keyboard warrior yourself.

awec

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, do you understand the basic concept that one doesn't have to actually support any side in a dispute in order to condemn unacceptable and morally reprehensible behaviour? Attacking the banks for doing what they do, private thugs for being thugs, and Gardai for failing to intervene during an assault, are not predicated on defending or supporting the individual who was being evicted.

To give you an analogy, you can believe that gangland criminals are total scumbags, and still also believe that someone who murders them is also a total scumbag. In fact, I think most people felt this way on the day of the Regency Hotel shooting.

I believe the manner of this eviction has been poorly handled. Thuggish behaviour is certainly not what we want to see.


But the fact he was evicted at all? It's hard to argue with.

hatrickpatrick

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

This guy would get the exact same treatment from a public bank.

Remember, the revenue nailed him to a cross with 100% penalties before the bank moved in.

Do you think in the interest of social solidarity that revenue should let him off with the vat offences?

Maybe if they have him that money back he could sort the bank and keep his home and land.

I absolutely do not believe that the revenue should let him off, I think he should be prosecuted.

I don't really understand what people are failing to understand about what I've been saying in here. I despise the for-profit banking sector and have absolutely no sympathy for what it believes anyone owes it, after the sh!t it put the entire world through over the last decade. I do not believe in people being evicted from their homes being anything other than morally abhorrent in a civilised society. I do not believe that private thugs should be involved in enforcing court orders, civil or otherwise. I do not believe that Gardai should stand by and "observe" assaults taking place without intervening to uphold the law and "keep the peace", to use their own phraseology.

And in parallel to all of that, I believe that tax cheats should be prosecuted and appropriately punished in court for their crimes.

One does not negate the other. I would oppose the eviction of Adolf Hitler from his home by a private bank on the basis of them being owed money, even as I would simultaneously regard him as the most evil war criminal in human history and believe that he should be arrested and face justice for his crimes. The two are not mutually exclusive, you can believe in both.

Omackeral

klaaaz wrote: »

not a wink of protest from the bank supporters about that yet they condemn the farmers over a much smaller debt!

klaaaz wrote: »

where is the outrage at this from the bank supporters here?

Bank supporters? You're really grasping at straws. That's the thing though isn't it? You deviate from the ''right-think'' and you're one of them 'uns. You must love the banks if you aren't on board with the 106 year old farmer or whatever age he is now according to some. For Jesus sake, you can call out defaulters and tax cheats for what they are without it meaning you're cracking one off to Wall Street.

blanch152

awec wrote: »

Here's the thing.

If you are a person who:

- Complains about banking interest rates in Ireland
- Complains about tax rates in Ireland
- Thinks Ireland is failing to provide adequate services to it's citizens

But also supports someone who:

- Cheats the taxpayer out of almost half a million
- Cheats a family business out of 18,000 euro
- Fails to pay the mortgage
- Amasses other debts of 40,000+

Then you're a fcuking idiot.

Excellent post summing up the situation.

All of the usual suspects are out defending the man.

markodaly

awec wrote: »

Here's the thing.

If you are a person who:

- Complains about banking interest rates in Ireland
- Complains about tax rates in Ireland
- Thinks Ireland is failing to provide adequate services to it's citizens

But also supports someone who:

- Cheats the taxpayer out of almost half a million
- Cheats a family business out of 18,000 euro
- Fails to pay the mortgage
- Amasses other debts of 40,000+

Then you're a fcuking idiot.

+1000%

Unfortunately, this incident seems to have brought out lots of idiots.
We really are a pitiful childish nation when it comes to being responsible with money.

klaaaz

blanch152 wrote: »

The reason there aren't many willing to do the job is the vigilante mob of 100 neighbours gathered to intimidate.

What do their families think of those thugs who killed the dog and burned out the cars.

So you suddenly have sympathy for an attack dog belonging to a loyalist goon, a person has to defend themselves against a trained vicious beast. Now you treat the entire population of Strokestown as a mob of vigilantes "intimidating" black clad thugs!

awec

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I absolutely do not believe that the revenue should let him off, I think he should be prosecuted.

I don't really understand what people are failing to understand about what I've been saying in here. I despise the for-profit banking sector and have absolutely no sympathy for what it believes anyone owes it, after the sh!t it put the entire world through over the last decade. I do not believe in people being evicted from their homes being anything other than morally abhorrent in a civilised society. I do not believe that private thugs should be involved in enforcing court orders, civil or otherwise. I do not believe that Gardai should stand by and "observe" assaults taking place without intervening to uphold the law and "keep the peace", to use their own phraseology.

And in parallel to all of that, I believe that tax cheats should be prosecuted and appropriately punished in court for their crimes.

One does not negate the other. I would oppose the eviction of Adolf Hitler from his home by a private bank on the basis of them being owed money, even as I would simultaneously regard him as the most evil war criminal in human history and believe that he should be arrested and face justice for his crimes. The two are not mutually exclusive, you can believe in both.

How would criminal prosecution help?

If he does time how is he going to work to pay back the debt?

If they find costs against him, how is he going to pay them without a forced sale of his property?

hatrickpatrick

awec wrote: »

I believe the manner of this eviction has been poorly handled. Thuggish behaviour is certainly not what we want to see.

So we agree on one thing. Now, what should be done about it? Who should face consequences? The thugs alone, or also the people who hired them? Who should be held criminally responsible for the assaults they committed in full view of the camera?

But the fact he was evicted at all? It's hard to argue with.

That's where we disagree. I do not believe in eviction by banks, full stop.

368100

blanch152 wrote: »

The reason there aren't many willing to do the job is the vigilante mob of 100 neighbours gathered to intimidate.

What do their families think of those thugs who killed the dog and burned out the cars.

Yes I agree....as another poster put it, the owner was ready for this kind of incident long before the northern security showed up. They could hire private security, but not at least make token payments to the mortgage

markodaly

blanch152 wrote: »

Excellent post summing up the situation.

All of the usual suspects are out defending the man.

If they farmers were Travelers instead the same suspects would be lauding the evictions.

368100

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So we agree on one thing. Now, what should be done about it? Who should face consequences? The thugs alone, or also the people who hired them? Who should be held criminally responsible for the assaults they committed in full view of the camera?



That's where we disagree. I do not believe in eviction by banks, full stop.

What would be your solution for those that won't pay (excluding those who can't pay)

hatrickpatrick

awec wrote: »

How would prosecution help?


If he does time how is he going to work to pay back the debt?

Fair point. Although, prosecution and jail time is how we deal with tax cheats in this country, so maybe that whole system needs to be looked at as wel.

If they find costs against him, how is he going to pay them without a forced sale of his property?

I wouldn't have a problem with revenue selling his property (although I've always said that family homes should be exempt from anything like this). You're failing to understand that my gripe is with the private banking sector, and with private security being used in the matter of court enforcement.

BattleCorp

People mouthing on about not paying mortgages because of the bank bailout are Muppets.

What would happen if everyone stopped paying their mortgages? We'd need another bank bailout, that's what would happen.

klaaaz

awec wrote: »

I'm sorry, are you asking where was the outrage when we bailed out the banks?

Were you living under a rock or something?

Where do you draw the line klaaaz? What debt should be paid back, and who gets away without having to pay anything in your utopian Ireland?

The line is drawn when old people are violently thrown out of their homes by marauding thugs. None of the wealthy elite were violently thrown out of their homes, they got off scot-free laughing at the taxpayer.

Omackeral

Malcolm Tasty Salamander wrote: »

You called me a keyboard warrior. Therefore i offered a real life debate. Its that simple. You're a bona fide keyboard warrior yourself.

Ok I'll see you after school in the yard so.

And I didn't call you a keyboard warrior at all. So that's a lie. Here's what I said.

Omackeral wrote: »

They do plenty of good work. Work that takes balls. Not everyone has the bottle to do the job. Easy to talk them down from behind a keyboard. Let me ask, do you face the threat of being slashed across the face every time you go to work? Do you have your family threatened?

blanch152

klaaaz wrote: »

So you suddenly have sympathy for an attack dog belonging to a loyalist goon, a person has to defend themselves against a trained vicious beast. Now you treat the entire population of Strokestown as a mob of vigilantes "intimidating" black clad thugs!

More nonsense.

https://www.citypopulation.de/php/ireland.php?cityid=0872

The population of the town of Strokestown is 825, 400 of them men. Add in the surrounding areas and you can double that.

Of the c800 men, 100 of them are hanging around outside the house. In condemning them as a vigilante mob, how am I referring to the whole population of Strokestown.

markodaly

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's where we disagree. I do not believe in eviction by banks, full stop.

Oh lord. Here we go. You don't believe in a functioning normal mortgage market so, as the only way for a bank to regain collateral is to evict, at the end of a very very long process and via a court order.

Your attitude is the reason why Ireland is not a grown-up nation.

pablo128

markodaly wrote: »

If they farmers were Travelers instead the same suspects would be lauding the evictions.

I said earlier in the thread that the 70 heroes in the dead of night wouldn't be as quick to attack a travellers camp full of burglars terrorising their neighbours.

Fr_Dougal

Great to see that the Margaret Cash crowd have a new cause to fight for.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fair point. Although, prosecution and jail time is how we deal with tax cheats in this country, so maybe that whole system needs to be looked at as wel.



I wouldn't have a problem with revenue selling his property (although I've always said that family homes should be exempt from anything like this). You're failing to understand that my gripe is with the private banking sector, and with private security being used in the matter of court enforcement.

It's a farm, not a family home? Farmers can't have it both ways, being against evictions but pro low-cost loans.

odyssey06

Hmm... wonder if strokestown businesses will find their credit drying up shortly. You would be mad to lend to this area.

end of the road

Omackeral wrote: »

When people say they want a United Ireland, are they really saying they want all British identifying people gone off the island? Just asking.

no . of course not.

bubblypop wrote: »

Who's the pensioner?

the retired garda. a man who served this country and was beaten by thugs.

mikeym wrote: »

A United Ireland is a bit expensive for the tax payer at the moment.

it's not no . it is likely to happen and sooner then we all thought. it's a question of when and not if.

bubblypop wrote: »

Did KBC bank get bailed out by the Irish taxpayer?

no but they got bailed out by the belgian tax payer. in my view his point would therefore apply to them even though they were bailed out by tax payers from a different country.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote: »

The line is drawn when old people are violently thrown out of their homes by marauding thugs. None of the wealthy elite were violently thrown out of their homes, they got off scot-free laughing at the taxpayer.

Why didn't those poor elderly people leave the house then?
Why did they gather up a bunch of people to fight the eviction?

awec

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fair point. Although, prosecution and jail time is how we deal with tax cheats in this country, so maybe that whole system needs to be looked at as wel.



I wouldn't have a problem with revenue selling his property (although I've always said that family homes should be exempt from anything like this). You're failing to understand that my gripe is with the private banking sector, and with private security being used in the matter of court enforcement.

Unless the tax fraud is so bad that the person has no hope of paying back the debt by any legitimate means, or they have deliberately and wilfully acted deceitfully to avoid tax at all costs, I don't think jail time is useful.

I don't believe this guy deserves to do time. I don't think anyone benefits from that. Not him, not those he owes.

But something has to give. He owes a fortune and it seems has no way to repay it other than via the sale of his assets to claim back as much as possible.

I genuinely sympathise with people who end up in this situation by pure bad luck, and in those cases I am certainly not against a level of debt forgiveness. What I have a hard time accepting is people who have deliberately ripped the arse out of it. This guys history is not a good read.

This guy is the sort of guy who makes it harder for those who are genuinely in need of help.

markodaly

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I wouldn't have a problem with revenue selling his property (although I've always said that family homes should be exempt from anything like this). You're failing to understand that my gripe is with the private banking sector, and with private security being used in the matter of court enforcement.

How is the bank meant to reclaim the collateral of the loan? Write them a nice sonnet?

The people in this incident failed to comply with a court order (the law of the land), therefore the bank HAD to hire private security to evict them.

awec

klaaaz wrote: »

The line is drawn when old people are violently thrown out of their homes by marauding thugs. None of the wealthy elite were violently thrown out of their homes, they got off scot-free laughing at the taxpayer.

Not really true is it?

The likes of Drumm is literally doing time.

A few more should be doing time, but we have to take what we can get. It can't be a free for all.

I have a hard time accepting that you'd be ok with this eviction if it had been carried out by the girls brigade. I think the whole "northern thug" thing is a convenient excuse.

PARlance

eagle eye wrote: »

Do you know that the Viper was allowed to set up his a collections agency where his representatives turned up at property telling people that they worked for him and ate here on behalf to collect moneys owed. Pure intimidation. I had to act as an agent for a friend of mine who was very depressed and deeply affected by them when they came to his door.

I had 8 of them arrive in to me when I was 24 & working in accounts for a company. They were boozing in the pub for most of the day before calling in. It was a hairy 10 minutes and I'm still not sure what I said but they were on there way with no hassle.

Went for a few pints after it myself.

People are extremely naive to think that a fair chunk of people in collections / enforcement won't have a shady past.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

the retired garda. a man who served this country and was beaten by thugs.



no but they got bailed out by the belgian tax payer. in my view his point would therefore apply to them even though they were bailed out by tax payers from a different country.

Being a retired Garda does not make you a pensioner. You can retire from AGS at 50 years old.

Not bailed out by the Irish taxpayer, therefore absolutely no argument