Evictions

Zayd Quaint Marsupial wrote: »

It's also the right for people in this country under the Constitution to be able to live peacefully and in privacy in there own home.......shouldn't it be for illegal for institution's to allow people use there homes for collateral in attaining a loans

It's not "there" own home. It belongs to the bank until it's paid off in full and they were not paying.

4ensic15 wrote: »

The security guards violently assaulted people to take possession of the property. What right had they got to do that? What goes around comes around.

No evidence that supposed assault took place. The gardai were there at the time . But the what is proven the security guards protecting what is now the banks properry were put in hospital and vehicles destroyed. Be careful what you wish for in approving as you have men been assaulted while working .

The only mistake here was that they used a British security company to conduct the evictions. Wasn't the brightest idea considering our history.

Sheepdish1 wrote: »

Who is Ben Gilroy and why is he a danger ?

I have seen him outside some of these evictions however I don't know who he is or who he represents. He seems strong minded in the brief video clip I saw him speaking in. I am not trying to stir anything, I am just curious :D

There is a very large long running thread over in the legal discussion forum dedicated to Ben and his freeman friends legal adventures.

Its worth a read due to their hilarious and horrifying adventures in frustrating bank repo's (only ever temporarily though) and giving dodgy legal advice to innocent folks who end up paying the bill for it. :eek:

Many of these chancers seem to be up to their oxters in debt too. :pac:

Hes strong minded alright.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

4ensic15 wrote: »

Once the man was pinned to the ground (if he had to be, questionable) there was no excuse for further violence towards him. they inflicted gratuitous violence and they can't complain when they get a taste of it back.

Apart your emotional response to the alleged assault by the security company in carrying out the eviction do you have any issues with the fact that this was no longer this man's property? In short based on his lack of serious engagement with his creditors does he have anyone to blame except himself for this situation?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/roscommon-eviction-kbc-seeking-debt-repayment-since-2009-1.3736042

garhjw wrote: »

This lads a chancer


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/roscommon-eviction-kbc-seeking-debt-repayment-since-2009-1.3736042

The effort by KBC Bank to get its debt repaid by Co Roscommon farmer Anthony McGann began as far back as 2009, court records show.

The bank engaged a security company to take possession of Mr McGann’s home, where he lived with his brother and sister, on December 11th last.

Last Sunday evening a gang of men attacked the security men who were in the house, causing some of them to require hospital treatment. A dog that was with the security men was killed.

Mr McGann’s siblings, David and Geraldine, are understood to have since returned to the house, which is in the townland of Falsk, near Strokestown.


High Court records show that KBC lodged proceedings against Michael Anthony McGann in July 2009 and that a possession order was awarded in the case in 2013. The size of the debt is not known but is understood to be in excess of €300,000.

It appears the 2013 possession order was not acted on. It is understood that attempts by the bank to negotiate a solution were unsuccessful. New affidavits were filed in the case in subsequent years. A renewal of the possession order was issued in June 2017. Mr McGann, who was legally represented, swore a new affidavit the following month, and a possession order was issued in August of this year.

Security men
It is understood Mr McGann’s home was visited by a representative of the county sheriff’s office in September and he advised that he would have to leave the property. On December 9th, the house was called on again and the occupants told that possession would be taken of the house two days later.

The court had told the bank it could take possession of the house at 1pm on December 11th and on that date papers to that effect were served by an agent of the sheriff. Security men who attended were engaged by the bank.


The physical removal of the McGanns was filmed and the video posted on social media. Members of An Garda Síochána were in attendance but did not interfere. It is understood there was no livestock on the farm at the time.

The situation in Co Roscommon is very unusual as most possession procedures are executed by arrangement.

Land registry files show that Mr McGann has a number of unpaid debts with a variety of financial institutions going back years. The judgment orders registered against his Co Roscommon lands included one by a Bank of Ireland subsidiary that provides finance for the purchase of Land Rovers.

The Co Roscommon farmer, who it is understood farms approximately 100 acres, agreed a settlement with the Revenue Commissioners in 2015 for unpaid VAT, interest and penalties, with the total being €429,501. What sales this VAT bill arose from is not known. Efforts to contact Mr McGann have not been successful.


€300,000+ owed to bank
€500,000+ owed to the tax man
€20,000 + owed to local businesses
More money owed to another bank for Landrovers

And this guy is considered a victim due to a wholly legal eviction

4ensic15 wrote: »

The man could still have redeemed the mortgage. It was his home until his forcible removal.

Did you read the Times article about the process from 2009 to 2018? He could at any point along the way have made an acceptable arrangement with the bank to deal with his financial issues including selling some of his assets to clear the debt. Instead he made things worse with the published Revenue case. I'm baffled by the continued support of this man on this issue.

4ensic15 wrote: »

Can you not distinguish between what happened to the man and the man himself?

I'm talking about what led up to the action of having to forcibly remove him from the property not the action itself. Any chance you could answer any of the questions regarding the lead up to the event? Despite posting several times you haven't provided any sort of answer. If emotional responses is all you got then fair enough.

4ensic15 wrote: »

What led up to the event is irrelevant. You can't justify the event by character assassination which is an entirely emotional way to proceed.

What on earth are you talking about? The man in question owed a debt to lender and through the legal avenues open to them the ended up with a possession order in August 2018 after 9 years. The property was no longer his. He was aware of this based on the Times article. The security company employed by the owners evicted him because he wouldn't leave voluntarily. The alleged actions of the security company on the day of the eviction doesn't alter this.

4ensic15 wrote: »

The questions is whether those actions were justified.

Was the property in question owned by the evictee on the day he was evicted. Yes or No. If you can't answer that there's no point continuing.