Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

donalg1 · 18-10-2011 02:42PM

MagicSean wrote: »

Doesn't NAMA already have a scheme set up to fund the repair of ghost estates? Also you would have the money saved by not having to pay rent allowance which would be massive. Lets not forget the money that would be returned by the tax paid by the construction workers that would have to be employed. And also the reduction in expenditure by not having to pay them the dole. And finally the boost to the economy from the workers spending again.

You dont have to pay rent allowance but you do have to pay the maintenance costs on these houses, you dont have to pay rent allowance to someone after 18 months either and you wont have to pay maintenance costs then either.

So instead of paying a construction worker 188 per week you want to pay him 500 per week so you can get tax of 50 back from him???

donalg1 · 18-10-2011 02:43PM

eth0 wrote: »

Someone still had to give him the tax payers money, not like he robbed it all.

It isn't all its cracked up to be, for one its in Tullamore and also a house that not many other people would want to live in or bother restoring.

Even if NAMA only got his 2k for it, better than nothing and would make life easy for the councils, cut down waiting lists. Once you keep out the investers these will sell for very little

If he had remained in private rented on rent allowance the housing list would have been cut down.

smash · 18-10-2011 04:03PM

eth0 wrote: »

I really don't understand this mentality of people up to their eyes in mortgages they bought into themselves who have decided to keep paying them every month scoffing at people who take another option

You're right. I should stop paying my mortgage and just go and take a house!

donalg1 · 18-10-2011 04:10PM

smash wrote: »

You're right. I should stop paying my mortgage and just go and take a house!

They have convinced me too, but instead of not paying my mortgage I have decided to head out this evening and drive around all the estates around the county and break into the vacant houses and then I am going to rent them out and use that money to pay my mortgage.

Cant believe I didnt think of it sooner.

CiaranC · 18-10-2011 04:41PM

Has some legal precedent been set by this case? Whats to stop someone else doing this?

Anyone interested in setting up a group detailing suitable houses to be appropriated by the members?

donalg1 · 18-10-2011 05:57PM

CiaranC wrote: »

Has some legal precedent been set by this case? Whats to stop someone else doing this?

Anyone interested in setting up a group detailing suitable houses to be appropriated by the members?

I'm in.

Fluorescence · 18-10-2011 06:23PM

CiaranC wrote: »

Has some legal precedent been set by this case? Whats to stop someone else doing this?

AFAIK, yes. No case like this has been brought through the courts before, so the judges ruling here will be quite an influential one if when more people decide they too want to break into derelict houses and live there free of charge.

eth0 · 18-10-2011 09:00PM

Could be one way of getting around the new property tax FG are bringing in

CiaranC · 18-10-2011 09:21PM

donalg1 wrote: »

I'm in.

freegaff.com

Could be a winner

IrishEyes19 · 18-10-2011 09:40PM

I have more respect for someone who has fallen on hard times who makes something of himself even with social benefits but once they find a job, comes of welfare and gets back on track.

Everyone falls on hard times at some stage in their life. I had a situation where I couldnt return to college because of the fees, had no money, no job, had to leave my social life, really had nothing. But within a few months, of really looking for jobs, I secured one, saved like hell, paid rent, bills like every normal person and will be returning to do my masters next year, if I hopefully have my job. Point is, you dont have to scrounge off the system to become a crinimal when times get bad. I wasnt entitled to any of the social payouts that he is, when I hit bad times. Not one of them. Im still under 23, so not a cent would I be entitled to as my parents income was assessed.

Im just amazed at how when a criminal breaks into someones house or commits a crime, he is reviled throughout boards. But when another appears to get one up on the law, or make the government look a bit like idiots, its FAIR PLAY, or WELL DONE!!!

As it is, Im peering through the window every day now to see if my neighbours take an extended holiday, so I can crash there. Sure its all fair game like (not)

eth0 · 18-10-2011 10:25PM

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

Im just amazed at how when a criminal breaks into someones house or commits a crime, he is reviled throughout boards. But when another appears to get one up on the law, or make the government look a bit like idiots, its FAIR PLAY, or WELL DONE!!!

As it is, Im peering through the window every day now to see if my neighbours take an extended holiday, so I can crash there. Sure its all fair game like (not)

Because the law has screwed most of us over one way or another. There is a high level of dissatisfaction with the system the way things are now and thats only getting worse (riots, protest around the place). So it doesn't seem fair to people like you who played along with the system and did everything by the book, but that doesn't mean the system is in any way perfect.

Those houses should never have been built, feck planning permission shouldn't even have been given for them but due to the greed of the people in charge at the time they were built. So it doesn't seem that unreasonable that an ordinary member of the public should be allowed to claim them

IrishEyes19 · 18-10-2011 10:32PM

eth0 wrote: »

Because the law has screwed most of us over one way or another. There is a high level of dissatisfaction with the system the way things are now and thats only getting worse (riots, protest around the place). So it doesn't seem fair to people like you who played along with the system and did everything by the book, but that doesn't mean the system is in any way perfect.

Those houses should never have been built, feck planning permission shouldn't even have been given for them but due to the greed of the people in charge at the time they were built. So it doesn't seem that unreasonable that an ordinary member of the public should be allowed to claim them

That's just mis-reading me, eth0, I have no problem if an ordinary member of the public claims a house. But most people do that by purchasing, renting, the normal system.

Ordinary members of the public should not get things for free without contributing to soceity. the fact that so many people here have said, sure he did the house up and all.

People: He did that with your taxes.
I honestly think people dont stop back and think until it directly affects them. What kind of society are we creating, and how can you bring this country back to some level of normality when people can get away with this? All jokes aside. He got a house and bills paid without very little or if any expenses caused to himself. There are families who have lost all that who wouldnt dare do such a thing.

eth0 · 18-10-2011 10:42PM

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

That's just mis-reading me, eth0, I have no problem if an ordinary member of the public claims a house. But most people do that by purchasing, renting, the normal system.

Ordinary members of the public should not get things for free without contributing to soceity. the fact that so many people here have said, sure he did the house up and all.

People: He did that with your taxes.
I honestly think people dont stop back and think until it directly affects them. What kind of society are we creating, and how can you bring this country back to some level of normality when people can get away with this? All jokes aside. He got a house and bills paid without very little or if any expenses caused to himself. There are families who have lost all that who wouldnt dare do such a thing.

Why shouldn't they get things for free? Land used to be free. It's only the past few hundred years that people were expected to get jobs. There is a whole culture around living off what other people discard. Giving these people stuff like unused houses is better than a high dole they can use to buy iPad 4's from China with.

Why in the feck NAMA hasn't made these houses available themselves is beyond me, the only reason I can think of is that most people who tend to be given free houses don't take care of them like this man does

There are people who have lost far too much and are far too passive about the whole thing and continue to get screwed over. but people aren't really realising that the end is nigh for the near-full employment society. There is an ever increasing part of the population that will never be employed and you can't put them out on the street because it's not "fair" that they get a house for free when you don't

Noreen1 · 19-10-2011 11:24AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Yes I am saying this. When a house is built to below the standards of social housing requirements and then left vacant for a few years its going to still be below the standard even more below than it was to begin with.

Would you like to back up your assertion that the standard of houses built for private accomodation was initially below that of social housing? Link?

Where these houses have been sealed off from the elements, the vast majority of them can certainly be made habitable without any great cost being involved. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that people who have holiday homes that remain unheated for most of the year actually spend their holidays in uninhabitable houses - which is patently ridiculous!

Having said that, unfortunately there are also houses that were only partially constructed, that are fit for nothing but demolition, unfortunately.
NAMA have questions to answer in this regard, imo, as do the government, who have failed to look after the interests of the taxpayer.

To suggest that every house on every unfinished estate is in the same condition is clearly untrue - therefore a solution need to be found now that will ensure that the best possible return for the taxpayer is achieved. This is one solution. Allow people X amount of time, rent free, to fit kitchens/paint or whatever. The amount of money they (The tenants) spend to be offset against rent, hence improving the value of the property for the taxpayer, while saving rent allowance/reducing the need for social housing.

donalg1 wrote: »

Unemployed construction workers cant finish these voluntarily as there is an issue of insurance surely? And again who will pay for these raw materials??

As explained above, where possible, the tenants pay the cost of the raw materials in lieu of rent.
Cost = 0.
Saving = Rent allowance.
Are you seriously telling me that the Government can't cut a deal with insurance companies whereby they can get a reduced rate of insurance, which could be offset by the savings on rent allowance?[/QUOTE]

donalg1 wrote: »

Houses end up finished at cost price. And who pays this cost??
Kitchens dont cost that much?? How rich are you? Are you saying a person on 188 per week can afford a new kitchen???

Bolded already answered.

I'm not rich. On the other hand, I'm a lot better off than people who have mortgages/loans who may appear to have a greater income than I do.
I have neither a mortgage, nor loans/rent to pay.
Maybe that's why I can empathise with people who are in serious difficulty, many through no fault of their own - I've been in a situation in the past where medical expenses for a child ate up all my disposable income, no matter how hard I worked, and despite being on well above the average wage at the time.
I can see both sides of the equation - that's why I can look for solutions that benefit both the taxpayer, and those in need of help due to the current downturn.

As to the cost of kitchens - Base cabinets start at €60-€65. Wall cabinets around the same. Cooker or oven/hob €400- €500 euro.
Again, no reason why serious reductions can't be achieved by bulk buying by the government, where people genuinely can't afford to buy, and allow people to pay it off, if necessary.

Incidently - where did you get the €188 per week?
That's a rather selective figure, since 3 bed houses would hardly be allocated to single people?

donalg1 · 19-10-2011 12:01PM

Noreen1 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Yes I am saying this. When a house is built to below the standards of social housing requirements and then left vacant for a few years its going to still be below the standard even more below than it was to begin with.

Would you like to back up your assertion that the standard of houses built for private accomodation was initially below that of social housing? Link?

Where these houses have been sealed off from the elements, the vast majority of them can certainly be made habitable without any great cost being involved. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that people who have holiday homes that remain unheated for most of the year actually spend their holidays in uninhabitable houses - which is patently ridiculous!

Having said that, unfortunately there are also houses that were only partially constructed, that are fit for nothing but demolition, unfortunately.
NAMA have questions to answer in this regard, imo, as do the government, who have failed to look after the interests of the taxpayer.

To suggest that every house on every unfinished estate is in the same condition is clearly untrue - therefore a solution need to be found now that will ensure that the best possible return for the taxpayer is achieved. This is one solution. Allow people X amount of time, rent free, to fit kitchens/paint or whatever. The amount of money they (The tenants) spend to be offset against rent, hence improving the value of the property for the taxpayer, while saving rent allowance/reducing the need for social housing.

donalg1 wrote: »

Unemployed construction workers cant finish these voluntarily as there is an issue of insurance surely? And again who will pay for these raw materials??

As explained above, where possible, the tenants pay the cost of the raw materials in lieu of rent.
Cost = 0.
Saving = Rent allowance.
Are you seriously telling me that the Government can't cut a deal with insurance companies whereby they can get a reduced rate of insurance, which could be offset by the savings on rent allowance?

donalg1 wrote: »

Houses end up finished at cost price. And who pays this cost??
Kitchens dont cost that much?? How rich are you? Are you saying a person on 188 per week can afford a new kitchen???

Bolded already answered.

I'm not rich. On the other hand, I'm a lot better off than people who have mortgages/loans who may appear to have a greater income than I do.
I have neither a mortgage, nor loans/rent to pay.
Maybe that's why I can empathise with people who are in serious difficulty, many through no fault of their own - I've been in a situation in the past where medical expenses for a child ate up all my disposable income, no matter how hard I worked, and despite being on well above the average wage at the time.
I can see both sides of the equation - that's why I can look for solutions that benefit both the taxpayer, and those in need of help due to the current downturn.

As to the cost of kitchens - Base cabinets start at €60-€65. Wall cabinets around the same. Cooker or oven/hob €400- €500 euro.
Again, no reason why serious reductions can't be achieved by bulk buying by the government, where people genuinely can't afford to buy, and allow people to pay it off, if necessary.

Incidently - where did you get the €188 per week?
That's a rather selective figure, since 3 bed houses would hardly be allocated to single people?[/Quote]

188 per week is the standard social welfare rate and is what Mr tuohy would be in receipt of so not really that selective now . I can't imagine any insurance company agreeing to that and I certainly can't imagine the government agreeing to employ uninsured workers.

So now you want the government to buy kitchens for all these people too. Nobody on 188 per week can afford to buy a new kitchen end of story.

The standard of social houses built recently were far above the ones thrown up during the boom and that's no secret all these houses should be left vacant and are being left vacant because the government is broke and can't afford to do anything with them

Noreen1 · 19-10-2011 06:32PM

Forget Mr Tuohy.
I haven't suggested thast Mr Tuohy be given every vacant house on "ghost" estates.

I've suggested that families could rent them, where these houses are suitable.

Neither have I suggested that the Government should buy these kitchens.
I've suggested two different means of paying for these kitchens, neither of which would ultimately cost the taxpayer a cent.

In fact, the taxpayer would gain.

Do you own rental accomodation?

donalg1 · 19-10-2011 08:50PM

Noreen1 wrote: »

Forget Mr Tuohy.
I haven't suggested thast Mr Tuohy be given every vacant house on "ghost" estates.

I've suggested that families could rent them, where these houses are suitable.

Neither have I suggested that the Government should buy these kitchens.
I've suggested two different means of paying for these kitchens, neither of which would ultimately cost the taxpayer a cent.

In fact, the taxpayer would gain.

Do you own rental accomodation?

You suggested the government give a loan to the new tenants to repair these houses which they can then pay back, but my point is the government dont have two cent to rub together so this is not possible. And that is forgetting the fact the government is not a lending agency or a charity.

Noreen1 · 20-10-2011 07:40AM

donalg1 wrote: »

You suggested the government give a loan to the new tenants to repair these houses which they can then pay back, but my point is the government dont have two cent to rub together so this is not possible. And that is forgetting the fact the government is not a lending agency or a charity.

Really?
Ahem. What about the community welfare grants for people granted council houses?

It seems you would prefer to pay rent allowance, at some point in the future build/buy houses for social purposes, then give assistance to families to furnish them - and all this is more cost effective than allowing families to furnish a home at no cost to the taxpayer whatsoever???

Seriously?

donalg1 · 20-10-2011 08:02AM

Noreen1 wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

You suggested the government give a loan to the new tenants to repair these houses which they can then pay back, but my point is the government dont have two cent to rub together so this is not possible. And that is forgetting the fact the government is not a lending agency or a charity.

Really?
Ahem. What about the community welfare grants for people granted council houses?

It seems you would prefer to pay rent allowance, at some point in the future build/buy houses for social purposes, then give assistance to families to furnish them - and all this is more cost effective than allowing families to furnish a home at no cost to the taxpayer whatsoever???

Seriously?

Ha. Where did I say anything about building people social houses or paying them rent allowance. Your solution to the problem is for the government to throw money at it. My solution is for the government to do nothing with these houses as whatever they could do would cost money which is something they don't have.

focus_mad · 20-10-2011 10:29AM

wyndhurst wrote: »

FFS....What a country!
A perfectly able bodied man on a disability payment. Clearly nothing wrong with him after laying floors, painting walls, renovating a house and fathering seven children.
Another example of the abuse of the welfare system.
Now, if he would only use the same ingenuity to go get himself some work and out of our pockets.

it's called depression. Which can sometimes be worse than a physical disability

smash · 20-10-2011 10:34AM

What's to stop this guy knocking the walls and taking the house beside him too? He could always say he needs rooms for his 7 kids when they come to visit... Would people applaud him then?

Noreen1 · 20-10-2011 10:54AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Ha. Where did I say anything about building people social houses or paying them rent allowance. Your solution to the problem is for the government to throw money at it. My solution is for the government to do nothing with these houses as whatever they could do would cost money which is something they don't have.

Whether you choose to say anything about it, or not, the fact remains that people who are in need of housing are in receipt of rent allowance, to the tune of €500m. p.a.

Source:http://www.independent.ie/national-news/social-welfare-rent-allowance-to-be-slashed-by-up-to-36pc-2216670.html

The minister added that changes would provide annual savings of &#8364;20m this year out of a total cost of &#8364;500m.

It is equally true that there is a social housing budget of €800m+
Source: http://budget.breakingnews.ie/news/savage-budget-cuts-will-lead-to-rise-in-homelessness-484806.html

(€300m/36 x100 = €833.3m)

Therefore a combined cost of €1,333.3 million.

That's a bit too significant to ignore just because you choose not to mention it.

In any case, NAMA appear to have made one common-sense decision here:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1018/prioryhall.html

Hopefully, they will see the logic in extending this to other housing.

For example:

There are 600 completed, but unoccupied houses in Donegal. (Source: Donegal Post 19th Oct.)

Yet, according to the Donegal Democrat:
http://www.donegaldemocrat.ie/news/local/drop_in_council_s_housing_list_1_2000819

The Irish Independent has collated  figures showing 2,320 people on the waiting list in Donegal at the  moment, a reduction of 11 per cent. In Letterkenny, there are 925 people  on the local town council&#8217;s list, a fall of 13 per cent on last year.
No figures are provided for Buncrana.

But you would prefer that whatever portion of these houses are owned by developers whose loans have been taken on by NAMA remain empty - despite the fact that there are people in need of housing, and that housing can be provided - thus both saving money in rent allowance, and contributing to offsetting distressed loans.

Your logic for this is what, exactly?

donalg1 · 20-10-2011 11:49AM

Noreen1 wrote: »
Whether you choose to say anything about it, or not, the fact remains that people who are in need of housing are in receipt of rent allowance, to the tune of €500m. p.a.

Source:http://www.independent.ie/national-news/social-welfare-rent-allowance-to-be-slashed-by-up-to-36pc-2216670.html
The minister added that changes would provide annual savings of &#8364;20m this year out of a total cost of &#8364;500m.
It is equally true that there is a social housing budget of €800m+
Source: http://budget.breakingnews.ie/news/savage-budget-cuts-will-lead-to-rise-in-homelessness-484806.html

(€300m/36 x100 = €833.3m)

Therefore a combined cost of €1,333.3 million.

That's a bit too significant to ignore just because you choose not to mention it.

In any case, NAMA appear to have made one common-sense decision here:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1018/prioryhall.html

Hopefully, they will see the logic in extending this to other housing.

For example:

There are 600 completed, but unoccupied houses in Donegal. (Source: Donegal Post 19th Oct.)

Yet, according to the Donegal Democrat:
http://www.donegaldemocrat.ie/news/local/drop_in_council_s_housing_list_1_2000819
The Irish Independent has collated  figures showing 2,320 people on the waiting list in Donegal at the  moment, a reduction of 11 per cent. In Letterkenny, there are 925 people  on the local town council&#8217;s list, a fall of 13 per cent on last year.
No figures are provided for Buncrana.
But you would prefer that whatever portion of these houses are owned by developers whose loans have been taken on by NAMA remain empty - despite the fact that there are people in need of housing, and that housing can be provided - thus both saving money in rent allowance, and contributing to offsetting distressed loans.

Your logic for this is what, exactly?

My logic is that those people in receipt of rent allowance for 18 months have it stopped and are told to go into RAS housing, upon entering RAS housing they are removed from the social housing list, therefore saving money in Rent Allowance, and lowering the numbers on the housing list. The tenant also gets to pay the same amount of rent in a RAS house as they would be paying in a Social house the main difference being the Local Authority is not liable for the repairs to these houses saving even more money on the maintenance of these.

Noreen1 · 20-10-2011 12:20PM

You say that as if the RAS didn't cost any money.
The truth is that it does.

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/Housing/SocialHousingSupport/RentalAccomo

So again, I ask you, do you own rental properties?

donalg1 · 20-10-2011 12:30PM

Noreen1 wrote: »

You say that as if the RAS didn't cost any money.
The truth is that it does.

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/Housing/SocialHousingSupport/RentalAccomo

So again, I ask you, do you own rental properties?

No not yet i dont but I have been driving around breaking into vacant houses on estates near me with the intention of letting these out to people who are sick of having to pay €24 per week in rent. Was thinking of charging them €10 per week, but putting it in the contract that it is up to them to bring them up to a habitable standard that they are happy with. Obviously there will be some legal ramifications to this which is what I am currently trying to work on, some sort of disclaimer maybe, like if you take up the offer of tenancy your rent is €10 per week you are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance and any initial repairs needed and if you are arrested for squatting I am in no way liable and will deny all knowledge of your existence. What you think???

Are you on the housing waiting list yourself?

EI_Flyboy · 20-10-2011 01:42PM

donalg1 wrote: »

No not yet i dont but I have been driving around breaking into vacant houses on estates near me with the intention of letting these out to people who are sick of having to pay €24 per week in rent. Was thinking of charging them €10 per week, but putting it in the contract that it is up to them to bring them up to a habitable standard that they are happy with. Obviously there will be some legal ramifications to this which is what I am currently trying to work on, some sort of disclaimer maybe, like if you take up the offer of tenancy your rent is €10 per week you are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance and any initial repairs needed and if you are arrested for squatting I am in no way liable and will deny all knowledge of your existence. What you think???

Are you on the housing waiting list yourself?

The guy's a troll with no discernable knowledge of anything he speaks of. Come up with any sensible argument against him, he'll just side step it to annoy you more. Replying to him only spams up the thread by giving him more opportunity to spout nonsense plus you're just wasting your life so why bother?

Don't feed the trolls!

donalg1 · 20-10-2011 01:58PM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

The guy's a troll with no discernable knowledge of anything he speaks of. Come up with any sensible argument against him, he'll just side step it to annoy you more. Replying to him only spams up the thread by giving him more opportunity to spout nonsense plus you're just wasting your life so why bother?

Don't feed the trolls!

Ha so says the lad that has never answered any of the questions i asked him no matter how direct they were. Just skulks off and comes back with a silly post like the one above, serioulsy though i asked you a hundred questions and am still awaiting your answer on these so by all means feel free.

I believe you asked me some questions too which I answered for you so now its your turn, if you cant manage that i suggest you keep on moving there fella.

Your knowledge involves saying turn them all into social housing everyone is sorted then!!!! very extensive indeed.

You even were silly enough to claim Mr. Tuohy used his own hard earned €2000 to bring this house up to standard so apparently they all can be brought up to standard for €2000. Yeah good one course they can!!!!:D

EI_Flyboy · 20-10-2011 02:24PM

donalg1 wrote: »

Ha so says the lad that has never answered any of the questions i asked him no matter how direct they were. Just skulks off and comes back with a silly post like the one above, serioulsy though i asked you a hundred questions and am still awaiting your answer on these so by all means feel free.

I believe you asked me some questions too which I answered for you so now its your turn, if you cant manage that i suggest you keep on moving there fella.

Your knowledge involves saying turn them all into social housing everyone is sorted then!!!! very extensive indeed.

You even were silly enough to claim Mr. Tuohy used his own hard earned €2000 to bring this house up to standard so apparently they all can be brought up to standard for €2000. Yeah good one course they can!!!!:D

I answered them all, you ignored them and you ignored plenty of the questions I asked you. You have little understanding of the situation and zero understanding of the law, on top of this you show no initiative or desire to educate yourself beyond your blinkered view of the world. You are prejudiced, incitefull and have added nothing to this argument but bile and vitriol. I chose to ignore you so don't take it as an affirmation of your half baked opinions.

donalg1 · 20-10-2011 02:45PM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

I answered them all, you ignored them and you ignored plenty of the questions I asked you. You have little understanding of the situation and zero understanding of the law, on top of this you show no initiative or desire to educate yourself beyond your blinkered view of the world. You are prejudiced, incitefull and have added nothing to this argument but bile and vitriol. I chose to ignore you so don't take it as an affirmation of your half baked opinions.

Prejudiced how? Inciteful how? Please back up your accusations. How do i not understand the situation exactly????

By initiative do you mean breaking and entering? I think i have a better view of the world than you do my friend. Especially when you applaud the likes of Mr. Tuohy so why dont you gtfo El_flyboy for you know not what you speak of.

You answered them all did you? Really?:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

I asked you a number of questions on the 18th which was two days ago and i am still waiting for answers to these i even asked the same question a few times that day which you havent yet answered. I even put 30+ question marks after one of the questions that i have asked you on a number of occasions so you couldnt miss the fact it was a question and might answer it, but surprisingly you never bothered answering it.

EI_Flyboy · 20-10-2011 03:07PM

donalg1 wrote: »

Prejudiced how? Inciteful how? Please back up your accusations. How do i not understand the situation exactly????

By initiative do you mean breaking and entering? I think i have a better view of the world than you do my friend. Especially when you applaud the likes of Mr. Tuohy so why dont you gtfo El_flyboy for you know not what you speak of.

You answered them all did you? Really?:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

I asked you a number of questions on the 18th which was two days ago and i am still waiting for answers to these i even asked the same question a few times that day which you havent yet answered. I even put 30+ question marks after one of the questions that i have asked you on a number of occasions so you couldnt miss the fact it was a question and might answer it, but surprisingly you never bothered answering it.

Yawn. More of the same, I'm back to ignoring you.

Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

Comments