You owe the bank 1k they call you a cunt,you owe the bank âŹ1,000,000 they call you sir.Wise words from a Cavan man I once worked with,whoâs now bankrupt.
Seems bizarre that the Attorney General would be allowed keep private clients while in public office.
Seems strange to say the least, but then nothing would really surprise you with âOfficial Irelandâ
1 Like
Gallagher is a very sinister character in my view. In the room when the bank guarantee was signed. On the side he was acting on behalf of AIB in their capacity as a private client. Clear conflict of interest, the public git absolutely screwed, not a word ever said about it.
FF insistence on Gallagher led to the quid pro quo that saw Woulfie get anointed that time as FG pick. Still look over there SFâŚâŚ
1 Like
Has there been any discussion as to what other service or capital project we should forego or what tax we should raise to pay for this?
Well if FG had not been squandering money on the national childrenâs hospital or enriching private landlords with the HAP scheme.
Iâd cut back on PCR testing and charge anyone under 40 without an underlying condition for the cost associated with getting a Covid vaccine.
1 Like
I think some things just need to be dealt with on the basis of right and wrong. If the state had been doing its job as a regulator this wouldnât have happened, and it isnât fair to leave these people with their homes crumbling down around them.
I mean we could ask the same question of plenty of the governmentâs measures. Their attempt to buy votes by increasing the pension for example.
4 Likes
This is only the start of the Mica problems. Someone maybe able to confirm, is it 80% of all public building projects had the bricks supplied by the same supplier as supplied for this Mica houses? I think Donegal CoCo signed a deal with them to supply the bricks for public projects for the next 20 odd years.
Cutting John Brutonâs pension by about 10% should cover it.
7 Likes
Thereâs another article in the paper today about apartments across Dublin (and presumably elsewhere) with fire issues/construction defects etc.
Should those owners get 100% uncapped redress too in your opinion?
I didnât say the mica people should get 100% uncapped redress.
But I think itâs a fair principle that peoplesâ homes should be protected. Where youâre talking about second homes or investment properties I do think itâs different. This is where jangle mail should come in, send the keys to the bank and walk away from the debt.
So weâve a liability thatâs going to run into the billions over the next decade. 10 billion?
In that sense Iâd suggest if the political decision is that we as a country should pay for it, that we address how weâre going to pay for it.
For context, this sounds like a bill comparable to the austerity measures of 10 years ago i.e billions per year of a budget hole that needs to be made up
Depends if they are owner occupiers or landlords/speculative investors.
What do you think is appropriate for the mica situation?
Many of the apartments with the construction issues are owned by owner/occupiers. Many are owned by reluctant investors who bought them during the Celtic tiger, couldnât sell due to negative equity, moved for family reasons and then canât sell now because of the construction issues.
6 Likes
Better break it to Gerry Adams that his holiday home is not getting covered 
Thatâs a good one.
Sorry should have said reluctant landlords. I donât think they intended to be landlords but circumstance brought them to that position. Most get out as soon as they can as the figures show
Is a holiday home an ivestment? Or just a holiday home?
I think the big issue is people with capital trying to make money on a housing crisis.