walshb wrote: » But, why are we assuming it was the man who was pushing this? Maybe, just maybe it was an intolerable wife pushing this build...
starbelgrade wrote: » There had to be two of them behind the decision. A wife might nag you to go & put the bins out or go to the shop for some bread & milk, but I seriously doubt that she kept saying to him, " I want a house & I want it NOW", up to the point where he said - as you do when you're about to put the bins out - "OK, I'll do it NOW, if it'll shut you up!"
ricman wrote: » It reminds me of a story i heard on rte,documentary about gamblers, some eejit goes to a card game on friday, comes home at 12.30 ,tells his wife and 2 kids ,we,ll have to move out tommorow , i lost the house. HE bet the whole house on a hand of poker. Theres a selfish idiot not thinking of his familys welfare.
walshb wrote: » He should have got Pamela Izewayu' on the case, I am sure she would have got this thing dragged on for years, eventually leading to them keeping the house
K-9 wrote: » The house is 6,500 sq. ft. Those figures would be skewed by box sized apartments and tiny 3/4 bed semis built during the bubble.
loobylou wrote: » Dunno.... 24 months is'nt a bad start.:p
baldbear wrote: » A 3 year jail sentence with a bit suspended and let him keep the house,
Mike 1972 wrote: » So people who break the law should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crimes ?
Deleted User wrote: » your confusing civil law with criminal law
cazzycaz wrote: » A big gamble but i know people who have built big swanky houses without permission and gone for retention and got it. Seems to be one law for some and another law for others. Will be interesting to see what happens in two years time...something will save it i suspect.
Deleted User wrote: » yeah exactly my point. We should have bigger houses and 6,000 sq ft + is a good thing not a bad thing who are you to tell someone else they wont use something?
danbohan wrote: » how could we forget , been rich in ireland is a crime , dont you just love it
Mike 1972 wrote: » Unemployed plumber = rich ?
danbohan wrote: » well if an unemployed plumber can build this mortgage free i wonder what an employed one could do , always said sw rates are too high in ireland !
ricman wrote: » Google sites for sale county meath, theres a big difference between a site x and a site that has outline planning permission for a house.A house needs acess to esb, water supply etc do you think it costs the council zero to provide services to houses. WE need planning regulations otherwise we,d have chaos plus massive environmental damage to the water supply.And theres plenty of legal sites for sale in meath or old houses that need modernisation. if he had built an 800 sq ft house ,he might had a chance of going for retention or some sort of compromise with the council.
Deleted User wrote: » who wants an 800 sq ft house on land?
K-9 wrote: » There needs to be a whole sea change in attitude in this country, particularly the "well, it is ok for them attitude". That perpetuates the problem.
starbelgrade wrote: » Butch Cassidy; You are confusing too many issues here - the housing lists, the ghost estates, alleged back handers & the legal issues are all valid debating points, but they have nothing to do with this case. .
Doop wrote: » How does this punishment not fit the crime???? He built something illegal now has to take it down.... makes perfect sense If you demolish something you shouldn't of, you get ordered to re-instate eg http://www.independent.ie/national-news/convent-demolition-may-cost-firm-8364127m-1254229.html Our planing laws are far from perfect, but they are there for the greater good.
tbh wrote: » we already have an idiot tax. It's called the lotto.
Butch Cassidy wrote: » Well it's ok for the Buttler brothers to give payments to certain politicians. They settled some €20odd million with revenue and weren't pursued. They perjured themselves in a tribunal and weren't prosecuted. There's many like them. White collar crime is not prosecuted in this country.
Butch Cassidy wrote: » I was making a point about our mentality in our society. About how it's fair and accepted to demolish a building that could be used for the betterment of people in need. Is there not just something grotesque in this notion of "justice" here? Take the house away from them absolutely. Then when the state owns it the state can do soemthing usefull with it.