nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Pensioners evicted from their home today!!

flynnlives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9u_rV7VGqw

via http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/04/18/the-eviction-in-killiney-new-video/

quite distressing video towards the end.

Not sure of the details.

There is something rotten in the state of Ireland!!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Vicxas

I hate the pathetic forced snivelling by the camera person and the awful Killiney accent. Not quite D4, not quite Wicklow. All pretentious.

philstar

Vicxas wrote: »

I hate the pathetic forced snivelling by the camera person and the awful Killiney accent. Not quite D4, not quite Wicklow. All pretentious.

spot on!! all that was missing was a violin in the background;)

fishy fishy

leggo wrote: »

They're not going to take money from you, though. Clearly. If anything, if successful this will push the issue of debt forgiveness back on the table. No judge in their country is going to set a precedent with the "Ah god, but they're so old" ruling that allows them to live in their home, free of payment, at the taxpayer's expense. So your fears aren't founded in reality.

It won't be successful, their standing as formerly wealthy landlords will likely hamper their case and they'll likely shuffle off, slightly red-faced, having had their tantrum for the country to witness.

Meanwhile, I think I got the point in one, as your post questioning me missing the point was entirely based around you trying to validate a witch-hunt on the rich.

And no, this is not trolling. Just because I'm disagreeing with the witch hunt doesn't make me an automatic troll. I know you're all pre-conditioned to begrudge the rich and hate landlords, it's in our blood sure, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. It's actually laughable when you look at it. And it's arse backwards attitudes (that were so widely held they became nigh-on unanimous) like the mob's in this case that made the Irish so mocked as ignorant 'Paddys' around the world for decades.

we might have been known as ignorent "paddy" around the world for decades, but our own governments are certainly ensuring that we will be know as a pack of ignorant "how high will I jump sir" gombeens for many decades to come. The world is laughing their arses off and who can blame them.

Ghost Buster

leggo wrote: »

They're not going to take money from you, though. Clearly. If anything, if successful this will push the issue of debt forgiveness back on the table. No judge in their country is going to set a precedent with the "Ah god, but they're so old" ruling that allows them to live in their home, free of payment, at the taxpayer's expense. So your fears aren't founded in reality.

It won't be successful, their standing as formerly wealthy landlords will likely hamper their case and they'll likely shuffle off, slightly red-faced, having had their tantrum for the country to witness.

Meanwhile, I think I got the point in one, as your post questioning me missing the point was entirely based around you trying to validate a witch-hunt on the rich.

And no, this is not trolling. Just because I'm disagreeing with the witch hunt doesn't make me an automatic troll. I know you're all pre-conditioned to begrudge the rich and hate landlords, it's in our blood sure, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. It's actually laughable when you look at it. And it's arse backwards attitudes (that were so widely held they became nigh-on unanimous) like the mob's in this case that made the Irish so mocked as ignorant 'Paddys' around the world for decades.

Im not preconditioned to begrudge any one and Im not sure if this guy really qualifies as rich so much as 'entitled'. Im not rich but if i managed to wrangle myself a massive house which i couldnt afford i would look rich but would actually be a gobshi.te living beyond my means. But i wouldnt play the victim.
If this was a modestly sized home which was once affordable for the owners but due to changing circumstances had become unaffordable i would have sympathy.

mathie

philstar wrote: »

they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they do...carcrash TV

Are you kidding me?
After the way Tubridy 'grilled' Bertie I'd say they'll come out unscathed.

Ghost Buster

leggo wrote: »

The fact you missed the tongue-in-cheek tone of that post doesn't help your attempt to not sound ignorant.

Are you related to Mr Kelly. You certainly have his superior air.

Milk & Honey

snubbleste wrote: »

It is correct.
Maybe you should have checked before you posted.

Maybe you should have read Section 58 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 before you posted!
What you have quoted only applies to part 4 tenancies where no fixed term agreement is in place. It does not apply to every residential tenancy.

goodie2shoes

Paparazzo wrote: »

Ah yes, it's only "begrudgery". The reason the property bubble existed is because of clowns like Mr Kelly buying 18 properties. Now he wants to live in a house he doesn't even own for free, and because we don't agree, we're begrudgers. :rolleyes:
If Mr. Kelly was black you'd be calling us racist.

the fact that his wife is a member of the Master-race who are now screwing us all to austerity hell doesn't help.

he should have got himself a big Nigerian mamma for the video clip. (and she woud have put the fear of God into those nasty bailiffs as well!);)

prinz

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Are you related to Mr Kelly. You certainly have his superior air.

I think the irony is probably lost on leggo that she/he followed up one post professing innocence on the accusation of trolling, with another that was apparently specifically designed to be 'tongue in cheek' to deliberately provoke a response.

philstar

mathie wrote: »

Are you kidding me?
After the way Tubridy 'grilled' Bertie I'd say they'll come out unscathed.

well, i'm sure one or two in the audience wouldn't be hoodwinked by them..and ask some tough questions

fishy fishy

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Maybe you should have read Section 58 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 before you posted!
What you have quoted only applies to part 4 tenancies where no fixed term agreement is in place. It does not apply to every residential tenancy.

wrong again - it applies to any landlord renting out private property.

When can my landlord evict me?
Your landlord must have a legal reason to do so and it must be listed in the Residential Tenancies Act.
Your landlord can evict you for any one of the following reasons:
You don’t pay your rent, or you frequently pay your rent late.
You or your guest do something illegal in your unit or building.
You cause excessive damage to the apartment or building.
You or your guest unreasonably disturb the landlord or other tenants in the building.
You have too many people living in the unit. In this case, “too many” means a number that is against health, safety or housing standards.
You lied about your income when you applied to rent the unit.
The owner or a member of the owner’s family wants to move into your apartment. In this case, “family” means spouse, child, parent, spouse’s child, spouse’s parent or a caregiver for any of them.
The owner will destroy the building, make extensive repairs that require the unit to be empty, or change the unit so that it is no longer used as housing.

prinz

philstar wrote: »

well, i'm sure one or two in the audience wouldn't be hoodwinked by them..and ask some tough questions

Have you seen the LLS audience lately?

goodie2shoes

leggo wrote: »

They're not going to take money from you, though. Clearly. If anything, if successful this will push the issue of debt forgiveness back on the table. No judge in their country is going to set a precedent with the "Ah god, but they're so old" ruling that allows them to live in their home, free of payment, at the taxpayer's expense. So your fears aren't founded in reality.

It won't be successful, their standing as formerly wealthy landlords will likely hamper their case and they'll likely shuffle off, slightly red-faced, having had their tantrum for the country to witness.

Meanwhile, I think I got the point in one, as your post questioning me missing the point was entirely based around you trying to validate a witch-hunt on the rich.

And no, this is not trolling. Just because I'm disagreeing with the witch hunt doesn't make me an automatic troll. I know you're all pre-conditioned to begrudge the rich and hate landlords, it's in our blood sure, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. It's actually laughable when you look at it. And it's arse backwards attitudes (that were so widely held they became nigh-on unanimous) like the mob's in this case that made the Irish so mocked as ignorant 'Paddys' around the world for decades.

it's not a witch-hunt to expose some old middle-class, multiple property owning freeloaders who are trying to portray themselves as victims.

Milk & Honey

fishy fishy wrote: »

wrong again - it applies to any landlord renting out property for six months or more.

Part 4 applies to every letting of more than six months. Some of them also have fixed term leases in places. E.g. A 12 month lease becomes Part 4 after 6 months. The Landlord cannot terminate on the specified grounds during the second six months because the lease offers greater protection to the tenant.

goodie2shoes

fishy fishy wrote: »

wrong again - it applies to any landlord renting out property for six months or more.

correct.
i successfully invoked this myself when i needed shut of a pedantic tenant.

fishy fishy

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Part 4 applies to every letting of more than six months. Some of them also have fixed term leases in places. E.g. A 12 month lease becomes Part 4 after 6 months. The Landlord cannot terminate on the specified grounds during the second six months because the lease offers greater protection to the tenant.

not in the case of a family member wanting the property - admit you made a mistake and move on.

When can my landlord evict me?
Your landlord must have a legal reason to do so and it must be listed in the Residential Tenancies Act.
Your landlord can evict you for any one of the following reasons:
You don’t pay your rent, or you frequently pay your rent late.
You or your guest do something illegal in your unit or building.
You cause excessive damage to the apartment or building.
You or your guest unreasonably disturb the landlord or other tenants in the building.
You have too many people living in the unit. In this case, “too many” means a number that is against health, safety or housing standards.
You lied about your income when you applied to rent the unit.
The owner or a member of the owner’s family wants to move into your apartment. In this case, “family” means spouse, child, parent, spouse’s child, spouse’s parent or a caregiver for any of them.
The owner will destroy the building, make extensive repairs that require the unit to be empty, or change the unit so that it is no longer used as housing.

schemingbohemia

My name is URL wrote: »

Does anyone know if they had been paying anything back to the bank at all over the last 2 years?

Not a single payment made since 2009! So they've been living payment-free since then, I wonder what his reaction to any of his tenants trying the same thing would have been?

gurramok wrote: »

Some of his properties were bought in the 90's whereby their value would still generate a profit if sold today. This scammer is trying to hold onto a posh lifestyle whereby the taxpayer funds it.

The thing is, he re-mortgaged most of them in 2007/8! What a numpty!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0420/1224314969008.html?via=mr

Monty Burnz

panama wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/pensioners-bought-at-least-18-homes-on-property-splurge-3087120.html

"The bank are not doing anything illegal, what I am objecting to is 19th century eviction tactics.."

How would he like to have been evicted I wonder, seeing as they were refusing to leave? Tranquiliser gun? Tazer? Something more 21st century presumably. :rolleyes:

old_aussie

Two well versed "OLD" scumbags.

Playing the "pity" card.

leggo

Paparazzo wrote: »

If Mr. Kelly was black you'd be calling us racist.

If someone were to say "I'd feel sorry for them in the exact same circumstances if they weren't black," then I'd be right.

Case in point...

If this was a modestly sized home which was once affordable for the owners but due to changing circumstances had become unaffordable i would have sympathy.

The one difference: these people committed the crime of once being wealthy. So when that goes to the ****ter, kick them while their down.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you class A begrudgery in action. How very ****ing Irish of us...

Monty Burnz

leggo wrote: »

They're not going to take money from you, though. Clearly. If anything, if successful this will push the issue of debt forgiveness back on the table.

Jesus Christ, how ignorant are people? Where do you think the magic money for debt forgiveness comes from?

The f*cking taxpayer, as usual. Jeez. All of this information is in the public domain: are people deliberately ignorant or what? If you don't understand this stuff, then please spare us the 'wisdom'. :rolleyes:

fionny

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Jesus Christ, how ignorant are people? Where do you think the magic money for debt forgiveness comes from?

The f*cking taxpayer, as usual. Jeez. All of this information is in the public domain: are people deliberately ignorant or what? If you don't understand this stuff, then please spare us the 'wisdom'. :rolleyes:

Spot on but most people think only of themselves...

philstar

old_aussie wrote: »

Two well versed "OLD" scumbags.

Playing the "pity" card.

:rolleyes:ah come on now, i'm they're biggest critic.....but i wouldn't call them that

chancers, charlatans............but not that

fionny

philstar wrote: »

:rolleyes:ah come on now, i'm they're biggest critic.....but i wouldn't call them that

chancers, charlatans............but not that

Posh Scumbags maybe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgfB6M1CRr4

Duckjob

I hear people banging on about how the santity of the family home has to be protected at all costs

To those people, I pose this question:

If a family renting one of his properties stopped paying their rent (lets say, for 2 yrs ) should he be denied his legal right to evict them ? That's their family home, right ? Surely, the state needs to step in and protect the sanctity of their family home at all costs ?

mathie

leggo wrote: »

The one difference: these people committed the crime of once being wealthy. So when that goes to the ****ter, kick them while their down.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you class A begrudgery in action. How very ****ing Irish of us...

No their 'crime' is not once being weatlhy.
Their 'crime' is trying to hold on to a house that they do not own.

snubbleste

Maybe we should call Alison O'Riordan and invite her to write a piece on this dreadfully tragic situation...

Frank Bullitt

Going on the Late Late will be the nails in the coffin, the bloke is fúckin' delusional if he thinks it will help his cause. He can piss and moan about how he was removed from his former home all he wants, but they were well within their rights to do that as he was technically trespassing, he was asked, and chose to ignore it.

And if he tries to deny he would do it to his tenants, is broke, or compares it to the Brits doing it in the 1800's then the people who defend him need to take a serious look in the mirror.

lividduck

leggo wrote: »

If someone were to say "I'd feel sorry for them in the exact same circumstances if they weren't black," then I'd be right.

Case in point...

The one difference: these people committed the crime of once being wealthy. So when that goes to the ****ter, kick them while their down.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you class A begrudgery in action. How very ****ing Irish of us...

No, just how very idiotic and churlish of you!

ronjo

Duckjob wrote: »

I hear people banging on about how the santity of the family home has to be protected at all costs

To those people, I pose this question:

If a family renting one of his properties stopped paying their rent (lets say, for 2 yrs ) should he be denied his legal right to evict them ? That's their family home, right ? Surely, the state needs to step in and protect the sanctity of their family home at all costs ?

Its a good point and I would like to hear Leggo comment on it.