Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

donalg1 · 17-10-2011 08:37PM

RayM wrote: »

Presumably indeed.

This is laughable. Unless you can provide evidence of this becoming common practice, I'm afraid your argument is dead. Hypothetical harm does not constitute harm. By walking into an unoccupied, uninhabitable house in a ghost estate, making it habitable and living in it, what harm is he doing to anybody? You know, actual tangible harm.

Actual tangible harm as in teaching his kids breaking and entering is ok, is that harm?

Wasting the Guards time by making them call out to his house and bring him to court when they could be helping others? Would you consider that harming others when they cant get the help they need from the Guards because they are out wasting their time with this waster.

MagicSean · 17-10-2011 08:49PM

donalg1 wrote: »

Actual tangible harm as in teaching his kids breaking and entering is ok, is that harm?

Wasting the Guards time by making them call out to his house and bring him to court when they could be helping others? Would you consider that harming others when they cant get the help they need from the Guards because they are out wasting their time with this waster.

That's some serious straw clutching.

donalg1 · 17-10-2011 08:51PM

MagicSean wrote: »

That's some serious straw clutching.

How so?

you still havent told me how you propose to sort the issues i raised in relation to turning these properties into social housing. But then anytime i raise an issue you tend not to answer it and try your best to avoid it, you said they should be used for social housing so please back up how you propose that to happen?

RayM · 17-10-2011 08:57PM

donalg1 wrote: »

Actual tangible harm as in teaching his kids breaking and entering is ok, is that harm?

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse. According to the Indo, he "tried all the vacant properties in the estate until he found one with an open door". Therefore he didn't teach his kids that breaking and entering is ok.

donalg1 wrote:

Wasting the Guards time by making them call out to his house and bring him to court when they could be helping others? Would you consider that harming others when they cant get the help they need from the Guards because they are out wasting their time with this waster.

This is getting silly. Are you aware of anybody who was harmed when they didn't get Garda assistance as a result of this? Again (unless you can prove otherwise), no harm done.

suicide_circus · 17-10-2011 09:03PM

RayM wrote: »

Presumably indeed.

This is laughable. Unless you can provide evidence of this becoming common practice, I'm afraid your argument is dead. Hypothetical harm does not constitute harm. By walking into an unoccupied, uninhabitable house in a ghost estate, making it habitable and living in it, what harm is he doing to anybody? You know, actual tangible harm.

I stick by my presumption, the man's credibility and trustworthiness is at very least in question. What was he doing go around checking if houses were unlocked? why does he think it is acceptable to take a house that is not his when the state is already providing him with adequate accomodation?
I never said it was becoming common practice, I said, what if it did.
Does something have go give someone a black eye or a broken jaw in order for it to be doing harm? His actions set a bad precedent;

Dont like waiting your turn on the housing list? Squat in an unoccupied house!
Dont like paying your mortgage? Squat in an unoccupied house!

Fair enough, the guy took a chance and won. Dosn't make it morally right.

donalg1 · 17-10-2011 09:04PM

RayM wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse. According to the Indo, he "tried all the vacant properties in the estate until he found one with an open door". Therefore he didn't teach his kids that breaking and entering is ok.

There is your problem there, plus i explained in a previous post that Mr. Tuohy the ex junkie squatter said he found a house with an open door which isnt what i would consider to be a reliable source.

This is getting silly. Are you aware of anybody who was harmed when they didn't get Garda assistance as a result of this? Again (unless you can prove otherwise), no harm done.

I am absolutely certain people have been harmed as a result of the guards wasting their time with this waster. The tax payer has certainly been harmed by him seeing as the state had to waste the tax payers money prosecuting him. But yeah your right the tax payer doesnt count at all.

And do you honestly think breaking and entering and openly telling your kids you did so wont harm them? Are you saying the kids wont be harmed by seeing their father in court or being arrested. Seriously deluded if you think this mans actions havent harmed anyone.

donalg1 · 17-10-2011 09:05PM

MagicSean wrote: »

That's some serious straw clutching.

?????

farna_boy · 17-10-2011 10:13PM

RayM wrote: »

You know, actual tangible harm.

What if someone is speeding, they are not causing anyone any tangible harm but there is a potential for them to harm someone by their actions.

Freddie59 · 17-10-2011 10:45PM

RayM wrote: »

I think that's usually a matter for a doctor to decide. Are you a doctor?

Do you need to be one to see how much he's perked up? A simple observation. Surely you don't need a degree to spot that one.:rolleyes:

RayM wrote: »

By walking into an unoccupied, uninhabitable house in a ghost estate, making it habitable and living in it, what harm is he doing to anybody? People seem to be having great difficulty answering this question.

Today it's a house. What next? A car? The weekly shop? Cigs? Videos?

FFS man get a grip. Everyone can't have everything for free. What planet are you on?

Freddie59 · 17-10-2011 10:47PM

MagicSean wrote: »

Yeah. Nobody has been able to give an answer. All you'll get back is some response about pulling his weight. One person did suggest his neighbour might be unhappy.

I mean, here you have a man on a housing list for five years being told there is no home available, when there is NAMA owned properties abandoned in the same town. It's madness. We should put all people claiming rent allowance in the NAMA properties and completely wipe out our expenditure in that area.

What answer do you want precisely? What if everyone decides to do this? It is grossly unfair to everyone else paying their way and who directly support this individual's lifestyle.

ANd then people want to compliment him for it.:rolleyes: What a country. No wonder we're the laughing stock of the world.

Sundy · 17-10-2011 11:16PM

smash wrote: »

"no evidence that he had intended to commit an offence"
...
I explained straight out what I was doing. I told them I was claiming squatters' rights using adverse possession to the property"

I think he knew exactly what he was doing from the start! He should have been forcefully removed.

And then he goes on to say he will pay rent and arrears.

You cant be in adverse possession if you are offering to pay rent.

EI_Flyboy · 17-10-2011 11:51PM

They're in inadequate places for social housing so should be bulldozed? How about actually offering them to people first and then if any are unclaimed, bulldoze them? Also if they all get bulldozed, the value of the loans secured against them drops to the value of the vacant lot. Demolishing the houses is pure begrudgery, nothing else.

Unfit for habitation? €2,000 over 4 months seems to solve that!

He's causing damage and harm? I think the Judge is far more qualified there and we all know her decision so unless you happen to be a highcourt judge, your opinion holds no weight. He's clearly inside the law and doing no harm, saying otherwise is sour grapes and shows clear ignorance of the law.

The Gards wasted their own time, he didn't call them so no offence there. I'm sure if they had anything better to be doing, they'd have gone done that instead but apparently Tullamore isn't the hotbed of crime some think it to be so they decided to waste their time on him instead of cards back at the station.

He said he didn't expect the Judge to go his way but now she has, he intends to put up a fight to keep the house. If you know anything about adverse possession, you'll know the clock started ticking on his 12 years the moment he made that statement if not before.

Tall poppy syndrome is particularly rife in this country and God help anyone who shows up the status quo for the circus show it is.

RayM · 18-10-2011 12:14AM

suicide_circus wrote:

Fair enough, the guy took a chance and won. Dosn't make it morally right.

I don't necessarily think it is right - I'm just struggling to understand why some people get so angry about what is very clearly a victimless "crime". When I asked what harm he was doing, all I got back was a lot of straw-clutching and a chorus of "what ifs".

Freddie59 wrote:

Do you need to be one to see how much he's perked up? A simple observation. Surely you don't need a degree to spot that one.

It certainly is a simple observation. That a depression sufferer has, in your view, "perked up" does not automatically mean that their mental health is suddenly tickety-boo. You don't need to be a doctor to know that either...

suicide_circus · 18-10-2011 03:44AM

I'm a depression "sufferer" and I pay for my own ssri drugs, why? Because i'm a hero? No. Because i'm a tax payer not a free loader

donalg1 · 18-10-2011 08:17AM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

They're in inadequate places for social housing so should be bulldozed? How about actually offering them to people first and then if any are unclaimed, bulldoze them? Also if they all get bulldozed, the value of the loans secured against them drops to the value of the vacant lot. Demolishing the houses is pure begrudgery, nothing else.

Unfit for habitation? €2,000 over 4 months seems to solve that!

He's causing damage and harm? I think the Judge is far more qualified there and we all know her decision so unless you happen to be a highcourt judge, your opinion holds no weight. He's clearly inside the law and doing no harm, saying otherwise is sour grapes and shows clear ignorance of the law.

The Gards wasted their own time, he didn't call them so no offence there. I'm sure if they had anything better to be doing, they'd have gone done that instead but apparently Tullamore isn't the hotbed of crime some think it to be so they decided to waste their time on him instead of cards back at the station.

He said he didn't expect the Judge to go his way but now she has, he intends to put up a fight to keep the house. If you know anything about adverse possession, you'll know the clock started ticking on his 12 years the moment he made that statement if not before.

Tall poppy syndrome is particularly rife in this country and God help anyone who shows up the status quo for the circus show it is.

So teaching your kids breaking and entering and squatting and ending up.in court us doing them harm?

Use them for social housing despite the fact they are way below the standard required for social housing? Yeah good one!!!

EI_Flyboy · 18-10-2011 09:04AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

I'm a depression "sufferer" and I pay for my own ssri drugs, why? Because i'm a hero? No. Because i'm a tax payer not a free loader

Or maybe because you don't have a medical card but then if you're paying more than €120 a month you can avail of the drug purchase scheme

donalg1 wrote: »

So teaching your kids breaking and entering and squatting and ending up.in court us doing them harm?

Use them for social housing despite the fact they are way below the standard required for social housing? Yeah good one!!!

The judge already decided there was no crime, the door was open and he improved the house so zero evidence of criminal intent.

The cost of demolition and removal no doubt far outweighs any cost of bringing the houses up to standard. In this case it was a mere €2,000. Have you any arguments which aren't specious...?

donalg1 · 18-10-2011 09:12AM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Or maybe because you don't have a medical card but then if you're paying more than €120 a month you can avail of the drug purchase scheme

The judge already decided there was no crime, the door was open and he improved the house so zero evidence of criminal intent.

The cost of demolition and removal no doubt far outweighs any cost of bringing the houses up to standard. In this case it was a mere €2,000. Have you any arguments which aren't specious...?

So again teaching your kids that squatting is ok???

I wouldnt think the cost of demolition far outweighs bringing these houses up to standard now, I would think in a lot of cases it would be better to demolish them and start from scratch rather than try bring these buildings up to standard. You also never said how you propose to pay the costs of bringing these up to standard???

listermint · 18-10-2011 09:19AM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Or maybe because you don't have a medical card but then if you're paying more than €120 a month you can avail of the drug purchase scheme

The judge already decided there was no crime, the door was open and he improved the house so zero evidence of criminal intent.

The cost of demolition and removal no doubt far outweighs any cost of bringing the houses up to standard. In this case it was a mere €2,000. Have you any arguments which aren't specious...?

So you werent thought the difference between right and wrong when you were brought up.

Nothing 'Specious' about that is there .......................

listermint · 18-10-2011 09:23AM

donalg1 wrote: »

So again teaching your kids that squatting is ok???

I wouldnt think the cost of demolition far outweighs bringing these houses up to standard now, I would think in a lot of cases it would be better to demolish them and start from scratch rather than try bring these buildings up to standard. You also never said how you propose to pay the costs of bringing these up to standard???

Forget the fact that in terms of overall design and location have these estates been designed with Social housing in mind. Its a different ball game to Private housing. As can be seen from failed social housing in the 70s and 80s.

These were built as once of private housing estates dotted on the edge of rural towns. But hey lots not let that kill the arguement that we hate poor people :rolleyes:

farna_boy · 18-10-2011 10:12AM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

They're in inadequate places for social housing so should be bulldozed? How about actually offering them to people first and then if any are unclaimed, bulldoze them? Also if they all get bulldozed, the value of the loans secured against them drops to the value of the vacant lot. Demolishing the houses is pure begrudgery, nothing else.

Unfit for habitation? €2,000 over 4 months seems to solve that!

He's causing damage and harm? I think the Judge is far more qualified there and we all know her decision so unless you happen to be a highcourt judge, your opinion holds no weight. He's clearly inside the law and doing no harm, saying otherwise is sour grapes and shows clear ignorance of the law.

The Gards wasted their own time, he didn't call them so no offence there. I'm sure if they had anything better to be doing, they'd have gone done that instead but apparently Tullamore isn't the hotbed of crime some think it to be so they decided to waste their time on him instead of cards back at the station.

He said he didn't expect the Judge to go his way but now she has, he intends to put up a fight to keep the house. If you know anything about adverse possession, you'll know the clock started ticking on his 12 years the moment he made that statement if not before.

Tall poppy syndrome is particularly rife in this country and God help anyone who shows up the status quo for the circus show it is.

I am getting sick of the perspective that he is not doing anyone any harm.

If he can afford to pay rent (and arrears) as he is offering, he has no business being on the housing scheme, where he is preventing someone else getting a house before him i.e he is causing harm to some other family / person.

As I linked earlier, just looking on daft, it is possible to rent a 3 bedroom house in Co Offaly for €500 a month. Now if he can afford to spend €2000 over 4 months on doing a place up, he can afford to pay rent on one of these houses or even a 2 bedroomed house or apartment etc.

By paying rent, it could allow someone else to pay off a mortgage, which would mean the bank would be more willing to give a loan to someone else or it would alleviate the debt of that person. If that person has less debt, they can spend more money and invest it in the country and help everyone else out of debt.

The reason people are so pissed off about this, is that the case highlights the need for social responsibility. If there were no welfare cheats (not talking about this person) or if people who could afford it actually spent the money and didn't apply for benefits they don't need, this country wouldn't be half as f*cked as it is now.

EI_Flyboy · 18-10-2011 10:17AM

donalg1 wrote: »

So again teaching your kids that squatting is ok???

We have 18k houses going to rot, NAMA controls the loans secured against these houses. Without these houses, those loans are worthless. The guy wanted a place where he could have his kids visit him and stay the weekend. The door was open, he moved in and brought the place up to a liveable standard. The law states there is no crime in this instance. That law exists for a reason and that is to account for when property is utilised for a period without any harm being done. So yes, in this case he's showing his kids that sometimes there is a silver lining to massive clusterfcuks all provided for within the letter of the law. FYI, he was squatting but not anymore.

The law is there not to appease kneejerking or lower high blood pressure levels. There are any number of ways out of this besides bulldozing if a little bit of thought is brought to bear. No doubt none will be. I think I've answered the social housing argument, costs appear to be minimal in many cases and you can let each individual decide for themself if the area is unsuitable. A lot of people seem to think they know right from wrong but are unwilling to question their beliefs or explore the other side of an argument, I suggest being more critical than emotional.

donalg1 · 18-10-2011 10:23AM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

We have 18k houses going to rot, NAMA controls the loans secured against these houses. Without these houses, those loans are worthless. The guy wanted a place where he could have his kids visit him and stay the weekend. The door was open, he moved in and brought the place up to a liveable standard. The law states there is no crime in this instance. That law exists for a reason and that is to account for when property is utilised for a period without any harm being done. So yes, in this case he's showing his kids that sometimes there is a silver lining to massive clusterfcuks all provided for within the letter of the law. FYI, he was squatting but not anymore.

The law is there not to appease kneejerking or lower high blood pressure levels. There are any number of ways out of this besides bulldozing if a little bit of thought is brought to bear. No doubt none will be. I think I've answered the social housing argument, costs appear to be minimal in many cases and you can let each individual decide for themself if the area is unsuitable. A lot of people seem to think they know right from wrong but are unwilling to question their beliefs or explore the other side of an argument, I suggest being more critical than emotional.

How have you solved the social housing issue??? You never said where the money to get these up to standard comes from??????????? I asked you a direct question and you did everything but answer it?????

Even if the Local Authority finds a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow turns this to a social house what the hell makes you think he is eligible for a three bed????? What the hell makes you think he should be allocated a house before everyone else on the housing list that are ahead of him on the list??????

Seriously though can you please answer the question i have asked you about where the money for all these social houses comes from???? And can you also tell me where the money to maintain these houses come from?????????????????????????????????

smash · 18-10-2011 10:31AM

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

It's a NAMA property and nobody is in it, so no actual person owns it.

The state own it. Much like it owns Leinster house. Bet he wouldn't be able to squat there though.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

A scumbag of the worst kind? Do you also think he and his ilk are the biggest drains on Irish society?

Which one of the following do you think has drained us most?
....

Kind of an invalid argument because while you like to developers/bankers/politicians, the country may be fcuked now but they are the ones who brought jobs and investment to Ireland in the first place. This guy has sponged his whole life.

EI_Flyboy · 18-10-2011 10:33AM

farna_boy wrote: »

I am getting sick of the perspective that he is not doing anyone any harm.

If he can afford to pay rent (and arrears) as he is offering, he has no business being on the housing scheme, where he is preventing someone else getting a house before him i.e he is causing harm to some other family / person.

As I linked earlier, just looking on daft, it is possible to rent a 3 bedroom house in Co Offaly for €500 a month. Now if he can afford to spend €2000 over 4 months on doing a place up, he can afford to pay rent on one of these houses or even a 2 bedroomed house or apartment etc.

By paying rent, it could allow someone else to pay off a mortgage, which would mean the bank would be more willing to give a loan to someone else or it would alleviate the debt of that person. If that person has less debt, they can spend more money and invest it in the country and help everyone else out of debt.

The reason people are so pissed off about this, is that the case highlights the need for social responsibility. If there were no welfare cheats (not talking about this person) or if people who could afford it actually spent the money and didn't apply for benefits they don't need, this country wouldn't be half as f*cked as it is now.

Ah but therein lies the rub! By highlighting the situation you've just outlined maybe he'll bring about the change that is desperately needed. Surely then his actions are a benefit? We're living in a state where social irresponsibility is rewarded, banks get bailed out and the directors keep their bonuses and Breeders, politicians who wreck the country get chauffeurs and pensions. Anyone who protests them meets with similar criticism. Social responsibility starts at the top.

I keep saying how NAMA is tied up in these houses and that having them occupied is beneficial. What if the value of NAMA plummets when these properties fall apart? All the money poured into it gone to waste. Is that preferable to kicking Mr. Tuohy out on his ear?

We all made our choices at the polling booths, it's time to live with those consequences and learn from them. Even worse if you didn't vote, you're more responsible for this mess than anyone else.

EI_Flyboy · 18-10-2011 10:37AM

donalg1 wrote: »

How have you solved the social housing issue??? You never said where the money to get these up to standard comes from??????????? I asked you a direct question and you did everything but answer it?????

Even if the Local Authority finds a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow turns this to a social house what the hell makes you think he is eligible for a three bed????? What the hell makes you think he should be allocated a house before everyone else on the housing list that are ahead of him on the list??????

Seriously though can you please answer the question i have asked you about where the money for all these social houses comes from???? And can you also tell me where the money to maintain these houses come from?????????????????????????????????

The guy put in €2,000 over four months. Where did that money come from...?

donalg1 · 18-10-2011 10:42AM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

The guy put in €2,000 over four months. Where did that money come from...?

The tax payer, so you are now saying the tax payer should pay to provide social housing for everyone on the housing list, and at the same time they are paying for the repairs to these houses they should pay the rent allowance for these people too??????????

Ha ha most ridiculous post ever me thinks, Where did that money come from good one!!! You said it as if it was his hard earned money!!!!

johnwatt · 18-10-2011 10:57AM

Sounds scary. I've never really been scared of ghosts apart from when I watched a pretty scary (in fairness) film last night called 'Grave Encounters', much better than Paranormal activity

farna_boy · 18-10-2011 11:16AM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Ah but therein lies the rub! By highlighting the situation you've just outlined maybe he'll bring about the change that is desperately needed.

Or, as everyone else has pointed out, maybe the only change he will make is that he will promote squatting as a viable alternative to paying a mortgage. Look the danger here is that he is setting a precedent and for that reason alone he should be removed from the house.

Tiocfaidh Armani · 18-10-2011 11:29AM

smash wrote: »

The state own it. Much like it owns Leinster house. Bet he wouldn't be able to squat there though.

Leinster House is not vacant though.:rolleyes:

smash · 18-10-2011 11:33AM

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Leinster House is not vacant though.:rolleyes:

It's not the point. The new Anglo headquarters that wasn't finished is vacant. If he had moved in there, put down some floor and a lick of paint should he have been allowed stay there?

Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

Comments