abouttobebanned wrote: » Easy to say that anonymously on the internet. But if we looked a bit closer at your life, would you really be as perfect as you're making yourself out to be?
the groutch wrote: » they have multiple other properties, any of which they could have sold to meet repayments. they will not be homeless due to above mentioned other properties they're still better off financially than 90% of the population
abouttobebanned wrote: » 78 people, and the OP who seem to think that it's ok to physically remove pensioners from their home in this fashion.
abouttobebanned wrote: » Removed by a bank who one of the main instigators in the collapse of this country's economy.
abouttobebanned wrote: » Every day we see bloody hypocrites reply to threads on Boards. "hi there, i got a threatening letter from the bank today [sic]" "Well if you pay your bills on time they won't sent you letters" 100+ thanks. Absolutely sickens me.
Monty Burnz wrote: » If I can't afford something, I do without it. But I'm a bit old-fashioned I suppose.
abouttobebanned wrote: » That video that was posted about the pensioners being evicted from their home, by the bank that almost single handedly brought the country to its knees.
smash wrote: » I'm guessing that their other properties were purchased as a retirement fund and are in negative equity with mortgages outstanding. It will be interesting to hear what happens when the full story emerges.
blowtorch wrote: » I take it that it would still be deemed as 'their property' until the repossession actually took place
seamus wrote: » Sounds like abouttobebanned was too busy getting upset about other people defaulting on their mortgages to actually bother understanding the problems with Sherlock's folly.
blowtorch wrote: » On the other hand - what if they defended 'their property' and shot a bailiff or two when they were attacking the door. Would that come under Shatter's new law? (I take it that it would still be deemed as 'their property' until the repossession actually took place)
abouttobebanned wrote: » My problem is with the way these people were treated.
blowtorch wrote: » (I take it that it would still be deemed as 'their property' until the repossession actually took place)
abouttobebanned wrote: » And my problem with this website is how quick people are to condemn others, as if they themselves are so virtuous. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple.
skyhighflyer wrote: » You're deluded. The reason that Anglo Irish Bank (and many others) was brought to its its knees was exactly because of the gentleman in the video and many others like him. Let's look at the background: Guy used cheap funds from Anglo to buy up various investment properties in the boom, which loans were then secured on his mansion in Killiney. Property market collapses, loans are called in and the bank enforces against the same property which he willingly mortgaged to the bank when he was looking for funds to buy up investment properties. I'd hazard a guess that the same guy in the video would happily have engaged those same sheriffs to evict one of his own tenants had they failed to pay rent on one of his many investment properties during the good times, but he appears to believe that a different rule applies to him. Is this fair? Let's take the analysis a bit further: me, you and the rest of the Irish taxpayer mugs paid some €35 billion to bail out Anglo. Why did Anglo need to be bailed out? Because of reckless lending to the guy in the video and countless others like him who were only too happy to avail of these cheap funds to make themselves richer. These loans were then transferred to NAMA who has a duty to the Irish taxpayer to realise value from these loans. Thus, his loans no longer belong to Anglo, they belong to the Irish taxpayer. As someone on a normal wage paying taxes and charges out the ass while trying to live within my means, I have no interest in subsidising this man's luxury life in Killiney. What happened is what needed to happen: the guy was put out and now the house will be sold in order to pay back the Irish taxpayer at least some of the money they paid bailing out Anglo (as I've already said, because of guys like him). I don't even want to start on those who liken this situation to the British evictions of the 19th century. Wake up - we had to go with the begging bowl to the EU and IMF after bailing out the banks. We're not evicting him to pay back out foreign overlords - we're evicting him because we took on his loans that then bankrupted us (rather then him) thus causing the country to seek a bailout. The guy in the video is literally the epitome of why we are in this mess. And yet people feel sympathy for him and feel that he and his wife should be allowed to live in a 6+ bedroom mansion at the taxpayer's expense. The mind boggles.
abouttobebanned wrote: » That video that was posted about the pensioners being evicted from their home, by the bank that almost single handedly brought the country to its knees. This post received 78 thanks. 78 people, and the OP who seem to think that it's ok to physically remove pensioners from their home in this fashion. Removed by a bank who one of the main instigators in the collapse of this country's economy.
the groutch wrote: » if that's the case, both the bank were very foolish giving mortgages to a man in his 50's (at the time), as was the man himself for taking them.
Monty Burnz wrote: » This is a great post, but I think it will be wasted on those who like simple stories and easy answers.
