gatecrash wrote: » Don't tar all pensioners with the same brush. Not all of them own 21 properties around the country and take the piss like these 2.
jmayo wrote: » gatecrash wrote: » Don't tar all pensioners with the same brush. Not all of them own 21 properties around the country and take the piss like these 2. Excuse me where did I say tar all pensioners ? What I am trying to draw attention to is the very fact that not all pensioners are the same. There is a mindset out there that pensioners are one of these scared cows that can't be touched. This case goes to show my point. Hell the thread was started by some poster who tried to pull the heartstrings by labelling the thread title about pensioners being evicted. :mad: Not all pensioners deserve state handouts nor sympathy. There are indeed a fair chunk of poor pensioners who may be surviving on state non contributory pension, desperately needing allowances to live and medical card care for medication, and then there are the ones who are not a million miles from the kellys. FFS technically michael smurfit and tony o'reilly are pensioners, not to mention john hurley, roddy molloy, patrick neary and michael fingelton. My point is this case once again shows the lunacy of the Irish social welfare system with regard to pensioners much like Michael O'Leary's comments shows the lunacy of the childrens allowance system.
gatecrash wrote: » Remember folks next time you see a protest to protect pensioners freebees, you will see people protecting the rights of these freeloaders. That's where you said it. You weren't specific about whether you meant Michael O Leary, this chap Kelly, or someone like my parents. That's why I pulled you up on it.
Doc Ruby wrote: » Only if tenants decide to dispute the eviction.
Doc Ruby wrote: » That's not what I said at all. I said according to official information a landlord can basically serve up an eviction notice on a whim (ie refurbishment). You may claim they are only guidelines but they are extremely clear guidelines, and not just on that website either, which it appears are now in dispute. Don't think I'm arguing with you on this, apparently you're right, but a bit more investigation would seem to be in order.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » It was on todays paper that their Rolls Royce strangely went missing this week. Silly people they should have held on to it, it would have been more comfortable than the tent to stay in if they wanted to squat in front of the house.
sunflower27 wrote: » Went missing or temporarily in storage? Sleeping in a Rolls out the front of the house was probably seen as likely to garner less sympathy than a two-man tent.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » Probably sold off.
hondasam wrote: » It's legal, they were given ample opportunity to move but refused, the only option left is to remove them by force. People do have rights but the bank also have the right to expect people to pay back what they borrow. They lost and should have handed back the keys, they want public outrage in order for them to stay in their free home.
Justice for the individual wrote: » And we are bailing out the banks. So do the banks have no obligation to pay back their debts. They are well aware that they will always be protected by our gullible governments, whoever they may be. They know that they can redeem the money from us, and nobody protests. This man and his wife are bearing the brunt of peoples frustrations. Instead they should be aiming their anger and comments towards the real instigators - excessive lending by the financial institutions and soft regulation by government agencies because of the easy availability of stamp duty money from the unfortunate borrowers. We are taking our eye off the ball, and this is a distraction from the heavy financial burden being put on the Irish people by our government to protect the European model. Nobody is paying back Mr. Kelly's debts. He has collateral - his properties, so the money owed can be redeemed. Lets not focus on this one particular case, but instead concentrate on how policies by successive governments encouraged people to take chances and go for bigger and bigger borrowings, leading to the scenario and indignity of a couple being forced out of their family home. We should all be ashamed of ourselves, the individuals who carried out the eviction, and ourselves for standing idly by. People like Mr. Kelly make mistakes and they cannot be pilloried for this. Failure is not a disgrace.
battle_hardend wrote: » people are not criticising the kellys because they made poor property descisions , thier criticising them because they deliberatley courted media publicity and tried to potray thier situation as akin to penniless cottage dwellers in the 1840,s , people saw through thier shameless charade pretty quick and didnt like the kind of brassneckery on display as for your spiel about the banks and the goverment , why benchmark against bad behaviour
mbur wrote: » Its always odd when the client tells all but the Bank doesn't want to breach "client" confidentiality.
Justice for the individual wrote: » Nobody is paying back Mr. Kelly's debts. He has collateral - his properties, so the money owed can be redeemed. People like Mr. Kelly make mistakes and they cannot be pilloried for this. Failure is not a disgrace.
ejmaztec wrote: » The couple should be prosecuted for loitering within tent.
mbur wrote: » Welcome to boards b_h. I disagree about the dismissal of the Kellys by paddy public. As soon as the word 'landlord" was mentioned they were trash.
I'll bet you we will never get to hear the phone conversation that Kelly was so keen to tell us about. Its always odd when the client tells all but the Bank doesn't want to breach "client" confidentiality.
I'm not so annoyed by what they did. We've seen plenty of "shameless" and "brassneckery" in a lot of high places recently. (I just don't recall having seen it spelt that way). Sadly for the Kellys they are below the "too big to fail" line that seems to exist. They are just going to have to payup like the rest of us mere mortals.
mbur wrote: » I'll bet you we will never get to hear the phone conversation that Kelly was so keen to tell us about. Its always odd when the client tells all but the Bank doesn't want to breach "client" confidentiality.
ejmaztec wrote: » The couple should be prosecuted for loitering within tent.:pac:
El Weirdo wrote: » You do realise, I have the powah to ban you now?
mikemac1 wrote: » No windup Was on another sitehttp://www.politics.ie/forum/united-left-alliance/186777-people-before-profit-td-joan-collins-speaks-up-evicted-property-speculators.html Not sure why People before Profit and the ULA are getting involved here Sure they were bashing rich speculators before, suddenly they defend them?
NIMAN wrote: » Can someone explain why the Occupy/Lefty people are supporting these 2? Surely people who invested in 21 properties and were so much an example of all that was bad in the Celtic Tiger era, would be exactly the type of people that the Occupy folk wouldn't like?
mbur wrote: » Welcome to boards b_h. I disagree about the dismissal of the Kellys by paddy public. As soon as the word 'landlord" was mentioned they were trash. I'll bet you we will never get to hear the phone conversation that Kelly was so keen to tell us about. Its always odd when the client tells all but the Bank doesn't want to breach "client" confidentiality. I'm not so annoyed by what they did. We've seen plenty of "shameless" and "brassneckery" in a lot of high places recently. (I just don't recall having seen it spelt that way). Sadly for the Kellys they are below the "too big to fail" line that seems to exist. They are just going to have to payup like the rest of us mere mortals.
Agent J wrote: » Well Mr Kelly obviously isn't paying back his debt. If he doesnt, IBRC does which means the tax payer. He hasn't shown any willingness to use said collateral to pay back this debt over the last 3 years so i see no reason to believe/trust him. Where is the responability for the individual? His mistake was to try an obvious pity play and try to play on peoples sympathyies. Mr Kelly has compared himself to Ghandi & 19th Irish Peasant famers. My sympathy is somewhat lacking for someone without any sense of historical proportions.
