Repossession

blacklilly wrote: »

While I sympathise with their situation (it must be awful for any family to loose their home to repossession), one must take some personal responsibility for the situation they find themselves in.

Yes we know the bank over lent but that does not make the borrower blameless.

The highest court in this land has ruled in favour of the bank, this case has gone "all the way" bar going to the European courts* which it seems they are now set to do.

What's the bets that if the Europe court rules in favour of the bank, the O'Donnells will continue to put up a fight?

You can't continue to stamp your feet when all* legal avenues have been exhausted and expect a U-turn

How many family homes do they have, They were in the UK claiming one there was. And it's a bit of a stretch calling it a family home when all the Ahem children are adults.

blacklilly

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How many family homes do they have, They were in the UK claiming one there was. And it's a bit of a stretch calling it a family home when all the Ahem children are adults.

I don't know how many family homes they have, do you? It's somewhat besides the point, I've already commented on that in earlier posts I made. Irrespective of it being a family home or not, the courts have ruled in favour of the banks.

Also just as an aside, a family home does not cease to be a family home when children become adults.

A family unit is not exclusive to parents who have children

blacklilly wrote: »

I don't know how many family homes they have, do you? It's somewhat besides the point, I've already commented on that in earlier posts I made. Irrespective of it being a family home or not, the courts have ruled in favour of the banks.

Also just as an aside, a family home does not cease to be a family home when children become adults.

A family unit is not exclusive to parents who have children

No it's not beside the point, Claiming multiple homes as family homes is a tactic to garner sympathy. Using the logic of beside the point they could have claimed all the rental properties were family homes. Family home Is bandied about here far to much, Other peoples homes have been taken regardless of being a family home.

I love this notion that 'family homes' are somehow sacred. Tens of thousands of people rent their family homes. If they don't pay the rent, they get f*cked out. Why should people who don't pay their mortgages* be treated differently?

*I know this case is not mortgage related...

blacklilly

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No it's not beside the point, Claiming multiple homes as family homes is a tactic to garner sympathy. Using the logic of beside the point they could have claimed all the rental properties were family homes. Family home Is bandied about here far to much, Other peoples homes have been taken regardless of being a family home.

Ok. I think you think I'm arguing for them, my posts should make it clear that I am not

blacklilly wrote: »

Ok. I think you think I'm arguing for them, my posts should make it clear that I am not

I am only replying to what is written, The use of Family home in relation to this lot annoys me. Its a/was a very very wealthy family trying to hide assets from the banks. They tried it in the UK they are at it here, I'm sure they can afford to purchase a modest house still and live in that calling it the family home.

I can see you are not defending them only replying to what's written.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Indeed, him and his wife need to get out of the banks house asap.

wasn't bank of ireland bailed out? if so, its our house not the banks.

Sh1tbag OToole

It's a strange world we live in. We give banks a banking license, so they may create the money they lend out from nothing. Then when the banks still somehow manage to go bankrupt despite the powers we have given them we use state money to bail them out.

When the "Ordinary Joe" can't pay anymore we boot them out of the house because we can't stand to see the lad next door getting away without paying his mortgage when everyone else has to pay theirs. The banks have their own rulebook though and they are far enough removed from most of us to see their inner workings so let's throw them a couple of billion instead, cripple the state for the next 40 odd years to pay for it but what gives, the banks are too big to fail.

end of the road wrote: »

wasn't bank of ireland bailed out? if so, its our house not the banks.

Bank of Ireland is nearly entirely privately owned now.

blacklilly wrote: »

While I sympathise with their situation (it must be awful for any family to loose their home to repossession), one must take some personal responsibility for the situation they find themselves in.

Yes we know the bank over lent but that does not make the borrower blameless.

The highest court in this land has ruled in favour of the bank, this case has gone "all the way" bar going to the European courts* which it seems they are now set to do.

What's the bets that if the Europe court rules in favour of the bank, the O'Donnells will continue to put up a fight?

You can't continue to stamp your feet when all* legal avenues have been exhausted and expect a U-turn

i never said the borrower was blameless. the courts will most likely always side with the bank. fair play for them continuing the fight against the odds.

RecordStraight wrote: »

I love this notion that 'family homes' are somehow sacred. Tens of thousands of people rent their family homes. If they don't pay the rent, they get f*cked out. Why should people who don't pay their mortgages* be treated differently?

*I know this case is not mortgage related...

because the bailed out banks don't deserve the money. the money should go directly to the state

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

It's a strange world we live in. We give banks a banking license, so they may create the money they lend out from nothing. Then when the banks still somehow manage to go bankrupt despite the powers we have given them we use state money to bail them out.

This represents a failure to understand how banking works. The money the banks 'create' is a liability to them. The loan is an asset.

end of the road wrote: »

because the bailed out banks don't deserve the money. the money should go directly to the state

'Deserve' has nothing to do with it. An economy needs banks.

Sh1tbag OToole

RecordStraight wrote: »

This represents a failure to understand how banking works. The money the banks 'create' is a liability to them. The loan is an asset.

Still the way they give a loan is much different to the way you or I would give a loan. I would actually have to have a fiver in my pocket in order to lend it. Nor can I run to the ECB to borrow money with feck all interest and sell it on with a much higher margin, nor can I get a bailout if I make a balls of it.

Nodin

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

It's a strange world we live in. We give banks a banking license, so they may create the money they lend out from nothing. Then when the banks still somehow manage to go bankrupt despite the powers we have given them we use state money to bail them out.

When the "Ordinary Joe" can't pay anymore we boot them out of the house because we can't stand to see the lad next door getting away without paying his mortgage when everyone else has to pay theirs. The banks have their own rulebook though and they are far enough removed from most of us to see their inner workings so let's throw them a couple of billion instead, cripple the state for the next 40 odd years to pay for it but what gives, the banks are too big to fail.

Not applicable here. This isn't some lad who lost his job.

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Still the way they give a loan is much different to the way you or I would give a loan. I would actually have to have a fiver in my pocket in order to lend it. Nor can I run to the ECB to borrow money with feck all interest and sell it on with a much higher margin, nor can I get a bailout if I make a balls of it.

But the ability to create credit is what allows economies to grow. The bailout nonsense represents a failure of regulation rather than a failure of the principle of banking - in an ideal world, banks should be allowed to fail. Bailing them out just means they will take even stupider short-term risks next time.

[Deleted User]

Ah sure, it's just a bog standard house.

Nodin

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Ah sure, it's just a bog standard house.

I've seen bigger caravans, tbh.

RecordStraight wrote: »

'Deserve' has nothing to do with it. An economy needs banks.

not ones so reckless they had to be bailed out by the tax payer

FalconGirl

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Ah sure, it's just a bog standard house.

Shure its 20 years old like!!!!!

That really was the best bit of comedy I have seen in a while. Utterly surreal.

[Deleted User]

FalconGirl wrote: »

Shure its 20 years old like!!!!!

You think they would get some decent gravel.

My sides were splitting!

conorh91

Wasn't it interesting though, how Browne alone went into the breach, whilst all the other journalists stood sheepishly outside the gate; for fear of... trespassing??

I thought it was symptomatic of our problem with an overly-deferential media.

I'm not saying the media should throw overboard and disregard the law of the land, but of all the institutions of state, the 'Fourth Estate' should at least be sailing closest to the wind.

hatrickpatrick

RecordStraight wrote: »

'Deserve' has nothing to do with it. An economy needs banks.

Why? Only in our current system, which is set up in such a way that we depend on them. We could create a new system in which banking would have no relevance.

conorh91 wrote: »

Wasn't it interesting though, how Browne alone went into the breach, whilst all the other journalists stood sheepishly outside the gate; for fear of... trespassing??

I thought it was symptomatic of our problem with an overly-deferential media.

I'm not saying the media should throw overboard and disregard the law of the land, but of all the institutions of state, the 'Fourth Estate' should at least be sailing closest to the wind.

The bank would have to object to the trespass, Those people inside cant that's why he went in.

Palz

This is unfathomable.

The man is a solicitor. He knows the law.

I hope he appears before a the judge for
ignoring a court order and the same judge represents society properly.

I am a law abiding taxpayer who thinks they should be in jail.

(which probably won't happen in this poxy country)

Palz wrote: »

I hope he appears before a the judge for
ignoring a court order

not at all. would be to costly

Palz wrote: »

the same judge represents society properly.

the judge can't and wouldn't be representing society. to do so he would have to be representing us all. he wouldn't be representing me or working in my name on this one.

Palz wrote: »

I am a law abiding taxpayer

and? what do you want, a medal? being a law abiding tax payer isn't anything special. being law abiding is your job. being a tax payer is your job unless you have a genuine reason such as being on wellfare for genuine reasons, such as disability or being unemployable

Palz wrote: »

I am a law abiding taxpayer who thinks they should be in jail.

for what. because they did better then you. waste of time and money. jail is for real criminals. this lot are far from it. if you want them in jail stump up the cash. otherwise, its just not cost effective

Palz wrote: »

(which probably won't happen in this poxy country)

good. we can't afford it. we need the spaces for real criminals. its just not cost effective to be sending these lot to jail for nothing

mzungu

Are the Je Suis Brian T shirts available yet?

yipeeeee

end of the road wrote: »

not at all. would be to costly

the judge can't and wouldn't be representing society. to do so he would have to be representing us all. he wouldn't be representing me or working in my name on this one.

and? what do you want, a medal? being a law abiding tax payer isn't anything special. being law abiding is your job. being a tax payer is your job unless you have a genuine reason such as being on wellfare for genuine reasons, such as disability or being unemployable

for what. because they did better then you. waste of time and money. jail is for real criminals. this lot are far from it. if you want them in jail stump up the cash. otherwise, its just not cost effective

good. we can't afford it. we need the spaces for real criminals. its just not cost effective to be sending these lot to jail for nothing

Banks were in such debt because of the likes of this chap who borrowed recklessly and can't pay it back.

Kind of ironic.

Now the banks are tryin to recoup money to pay the bailout back and people are on their case.

Just can't win.