is that not what happened?
Your sidekick is going on about pensioners being robbed (thatâs not hyperbole because ye were in the same dorm ?) or go to the same yacht club is it?
Thatâs a tough gig and I agree that the scheme should address ancillary direct costs in addition to the rebuilding.
I think you need to read to understand rather than with the intent to reply.
I know, some are failing to understand how serious, as i stated " understand the seriousness"
I am not confused re human rights thank you for supposing that I am but my mind is clear on the issue.
Why should the redress be limited to a standard social house? what is a standard social house? Why canât redress place people back where they were?
It will cost money, money that looks after our citizens, far better than what some of our funds have been spent on previously.
Do you mind me asking where you reside?
I canât really understand the attitude to limit putting people back where they were.
I donât tag everyone in posts, did it make you feel better inside thinking you had a gotya?
The facts are that many people put their life savings into banks and Jen they were told they were well regulated and strong by State bodies. They got absolutely nothing. Some âbailoutâ.
I have already repeatedly said I agree with redress, but not 100% on all types of homes. We shouldnât be paying for McMansions when others canât get on the ladder. The scheme as proposed is more than sufficient.
heâs wintering in the Hamptons
I ask again do you think that anyone who has a potential rebuild cost of âŹ200,000 should be able to find âŹ20,000 plus rent a house for around another âŹ10,000 during the rebuild process and continue to pay their existing mortgage as well?
When you invest money - it is into a regulated market - where values rise and fall. Itâs gambling.
Now the people that coerced pensioners to invest in banks who got fucked - guess what, nobody went to jail, or at least not the right ones for long enough.
When you invest in a house you expect it to be built to a standard and be liveable. The banks force you to get Engineering reports and tests done before paying down the money. It isnât a gamble unless its an investment purchase.
These people will have no homes
2 Likes
I wonder could pressure be put on the lending associations for a stay of execution on the mortgage and interest?
No it isnât what happened.
The rest of your stuff is second grade âye fuckers up in Dublinâ style ranting and sub-Trumpian conspiracy stuff. Thatâs sometimes a bit amusing when its being done to hop balls or for comedy effect but to be honest in this case it doesnât seem like either of those.
I suppose it might make you feel better and youâre definitely very angry about something so maybe thatâs a good thing but it diminishes whatever argument youâre trying to make.
there was no criminal negligence in the MICA case? Really?
The ye fuckers in Dublin was a bit of play with TSG ye fuckers down the country shtick, you probably didnât notice him doing that though, again, the yacht club
I could say Iâm not angry and fight that battle but thereâs no point, I canât prove it.
What I will say is, I have an opinion on this matter and I wonât be pushed off it by all the soft talk of cunts trying to shit on people whoâll lose their homes
You are putting in place a relatively here. That is subjective and itâs only use in this argument is try to make out that people do not care.
The rest is again, emotive bullshit. Where I live has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
What @Little_Lord_Fauntleroy posted was that the home funded should be relatively standard. This could fund houses up to 3,000sqf, far in away in excess of a normal family home.
Please justify how 350k is not sufficient given the below;
This statement below sounds nice, but is divorced from any grounding or realism.
The costs are already going to be north of âŹ3bn. What we are saying is that there has to be a limit.
You are buying an asset.
You also buy an asset with a home.
Is a home different to a stock? Clearly, but letâs look at this relatively.
Pensioners got zero compensation for State failings on regulation. The State are lining up here to provide redress. It is not absolute, and absolutely should not he given their duty to wider society.
they have to pay a mortgage for a house that isnât habitable, and pay rental costs and ancillary costs while the rebuilds are happening. They arenât looking for anything outside of the costs they will face.
If the state doesnât want to pony up why donât they open up those responsible for prosecution?
with all due respect thatâs a cluster fuck of a post
I said the State should work with the banks on this matter. You already asked me that question and I answered. Yet you come back with this, dearly me. Any other zingers about the Hamptons or pensions being âexcessâ for us?
why havenât you said the state should go after those responsible for this and get proper compensation for the people affected?
When Cork floods lads just laugh at them.
Which is fair enough too.
You have a pattern of conceding here, the same with your previous strawman remark.
Are you going to answer this?
Do you think that anyone who has a potential rebuild cost of âŹ200,000 should be able to find âŹ20,000 plus rent a house for around another âŹ10,000 during the rebuild process and continue to pay their existing mortgage as well?
the government should talk to the banks seems to be his answer. @Tim_Riggins
what should they talk about?