Fire in Cathedral sq.

Sully

I wont be drawn into a debate about the rights and wrongs of ethics. You will definately go ape :P

At the end of the day, I read an article about arsonists in the building on the glen that was burned down and IIRC they started it accidently to get heat. I assumed, and its a safe assumption to say squatters used an un occupied building, that the same happened at this fire.

Sorry if that offended you as a fellow squatter.

_FRANK_

i'm no longer a squatter so no that didn't offend me.i'm not trying to get you into a debate about ethics.at the end of the day we all have freedom of speech and i am using that right.you say it's a safe assumption i say it's an unfair assumption,given the facts surrounding the matter ie.nobody arrested,no suspects and no charges.can i safely assume it was the pope without being challenged on my assumption?all i did was to challenge your assumption,it's not ethics.i saw a fire juggler in waterford i wonder did the squatters start him up.all i can say is god love waterford if there's a squatters convention here.wouldn't be the worst thing to happen waterford especially if they had their convention in rubys.

jdb66

Sully wrote: »

Did you read my post at all?

Btw, the fire was caused accidently from what I recall.

I have read your post,actually and the reply from you above dos'nt really answer the question i asked.

Did I say that? No I didnt.
Did I emply that? No I didnt.
Do I mean that? No I dont.

:rolleyes:

Did i say you did? No i did'nt.

As for what you implied or meant,only you know that answer.

Sully

jdb66 wrote: »

Did i say you did? No i did'nt.

Then dont quote my post and make that suggestion.

As for what you implied or meant,only you know that answer.

Its very clear what I said and what I meant. You clearly didnt read the post as the same question was already asked and answered!

Sully

_FRANK_ wrote: »

i'm no longer a squatter so no that didn't offend me.i'm not trying to get you into a debate about ethics.at the end of the day we all have freedom of speech and i am using that right.you say it's a safe assumption i say it's an unfair assumption,given the facts surrounding the matter ie.nobody arrested,no suspects and no charges.can i safely assume it was the pope without being challenged on my assumption?all i did was to challenge your assumption,it's not ethics.i saw a fire juggler in waterford i wonder did the squatters start him up.all i can say is god love waterford if there's a squatters convention here.wouldn't be the worst thing to happen waterford especially if they had their convention in rubys.

Any chance you can type a bit better - im finding it hard to read your post, sorry!

My assumption is based that squatters normaly take over buildings that are not in use and are left lying idle. Normaly near derlict buildings, not proper homes just left idle for a while. IIRC the fire by The Forum was accidently set by squatters trying to get warm (I wish I had the article!) which funnily enough was a building matching the criteria set above. Therefore, I assumed, that it MAY have happened as a result.

We cant say the Pope did it, as the Pope wasnt in Ireland has no history of trespassing or breaking and entry. It would be unusual for that type of person to do such.

jdb66

Sully wrote: »

Then dont quote my post and make that suggestion.

I'll decide for myself what i want to quote,thank's.


Its very clear what I said and what I meant. You clearly didnt read the post as the same question was already asked and answered!

They know it was squatters because they were at the scene and admitted to causing the fire...

From reply #24,it's very clear ok.:rolleyes:

You must have been 100% certain that the above was indeed fact before you posted,or did that get reported in the N&S and you just assumed it to be a factually accurate report?

_FRANK_

Sully wrote: »

Any chance you can type a bit better - im finding it hard to read your post, sorry!

My assumption is based that squatters normaly take over buildings that are not in use and are left lying idle. Normaly near derlict buildings, not proper homes just left idle for a while. IIRC the fire by The Forum was accidently set by squatters trying to get warm (I wish I had the article!) which funnily enough was a building matching the criteria set above. Therefore, I assumed, that it MAY have happened as a result.

We cant say the Pope did it, as the Pope wasnt in Ireland has no history of trespassing or breaking and entry. It would be unusual for that type of person to do such.

well there you go again squatters do not trespass or have to break an entry to gain access to a building.

this is the same typing.

your assumptions are not based on fact.they are wrong.you need to get another set of assumptions.whoever gave you your current assumptions?

you assumed that it MAY have happened as a result based on your assumptions that the buliding was of the same build looked alike apart from location.the squatters oh i see what you're saying it's the arsonists they had deja vu walking pass

Tom:jasus paddy doesn't that look like the building we burned down 2 weeks ago?

Paddy:begor it does hey lets get some petrol and try and get warm

Tom:sure paddy it's only half five.

i'm not sure what type of person the pope is but i find it bizzare that he has the biggest porn collection in the world.so you think that squatters are the type of people to tresspass and break an entry you have alot to learn about squatters until then......

Sully

Oh sorry, I didnt realise squatters were given keys and permission from the owner. My bad. Sorry about that.

_FRANK_

Sully wrote: »

Oh sorry, I didnt realise squatters were given keys and permission from the owner. My bad. Sorry about that.

i'd like to see your perspective on things but i can't get my head that far up my rectum!

when you claim squatters rights you are not tresspassing and yes squatters do get keys from owners i know i did.

Sully

_FRANK_ wrote: »

i'd like to see your perspective on things but i can't get my head that far up my rectum!

Really? Sorry to hear that.

when you claim squatters rights you are not tresspassing and yes squatters do get keys from owners i know i did.

I think in a lot of cases, they dont get the keys or get permission. Now afaik going onto someones private property without permission is trespassing.

_FRANK_

Sully wrote: »

Really? Sorry to hear that.



I think in a lot of cases, they dont get the keys or get permission. Now afaik going onto someones private property without permission is trespassing.

yea so how come pat kenny isn't been charged with trespassing?
lmao didn't think pat was that TYPE of person to be a squatter.

so there you have it garda! pat kenny was in ireland at the time has a history of lighting fires and is also a squatter.no.1 suspect as far as sullys presumptions go.

thank god your not a cop we'd have no late late show to watch.

Sully

Pat Kennys court case is not finished yet. Plus thats a different type of squatting.

Also, Pay Kenny is not a guard?! :S

_FRANK_

that paragraph was conveyed towards the cops.

could you explain how there are different types of squatting?

the law states once you claim squatters rights you are squatting.

i've never been brought up to the stand in a civil case for a different type of squatting.
i have squatted fields,houses,flats,shops,warehouses and a tree.i told the judge i was squatting in all the previous locations and he agreed that i was indeed squatting,and something about the need for the removel of me from these locations.different judges different places.

unless there is a different genre of "talk show host squatters" out there you are sadly mistaken that there is a different type of squatting.

jdb66

_FRANK_ wrote: »

could you explain how there are different types of squatting?

QUOTE]


Am most interested to hear about these different types of squatting too.

Sully

_FRANK_ wrote: »

so there you have it garda pat kenny was in ireland at the time has a history of lighting fires and is also a squatter.no.1 suspect as far as sullys presumptions go.

Again, garda pat kenny?!?!?!

By law, squatting is the one thing maybe. However, you can either squat by breaking into a house and claiming "we have rights, even tho we dont really own the building" or squatting by saying that a piece of land is yours.

In Pats case, and its not finalised with a judge warning him to settle his differences outside of court if he wants to keep his 'idealyic' lifestyle, its over land. Not cause himself and the wife broke into a house and refused to move for the tenant claiming squatting rights.

Anyway, my point is a lot of squatters use run down buildings that are not in use to "live in". Fires can be started accidentlay as a result, and has happened in waterford before, so I stand by my assumption that squatters MAY HAVE started this fire ACCIDENTALY.

I dont give a ****e about rights, or about the fact the guards didnt say it was squatters. I stand by my comment. I also agree with merlante and it could very well be trouble makers in the area. But I suppose using your logic, its not right to assume that either? :rolleyes:

lostexpectation

sometimes, owners of buildings purposely leave their buildings unsecure, i the knowldge that people can get int, then accidents happen , who's fault is it? hmmm who benefits?

Sully

lostexpectation wrote: »

sometimes, owners of buildings purposely leave their buildings unsecure, i the knowldge that people can get int, then accidents happen , who's fault is it? hmmm who benefits?

Still trespassing. Owner benefits and so do the tresspassers. Could be the case in this fire, who knows?

_FRANK_

Sully wrote: »

Again, garda pat kenny?!?!?!

By law, squatting is the one thing maybe. However, you can either squat by breaking into a house and claiming "we have rights, even tho we dont really own the building" or squatting by saying that a piece of land is yours.

so you think that the law makes a difference between squatting a piece of land and squatting a house?

there is no difference where you are squatting you are still squatting. if you own your land or a house there is no way you can become the squatter of your own land/house.

Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use. Squatting is significantly more common in urban areas than rural areas, especially when urban decay occurs. According to author Robert Neuwirth, there may be as many as one billion squatters globally, or about one of every seven people.[1]quote from wikipedia.

Sully

Sully wrote: »

Again, garda pat kenny?!?!?!

By law, squatting is the one thing maybe.

Read, Understand, Thanks.

_FRANK_

i have read your statement and yes i understand,even though it is very fague.
you still have not answered the question i conveyed to you.

"what other types of squatting are there?"

btw thanks for all your contradictions on this post.

Sully

Sully wrote: »

By law, squatting is the one thing maybe. However, you can either squat by breaking into a house and claiming "we have rights, even tho we dont really own the building" or squatting by saying that a piece of land is yours.

"fague" which I assume you mean "vague".

Contradictions point out to me. You will probably get it wrong, or misunderstood as your missing a lot of what I say which is in black and white..

_FRANK_

Sully wrote: »

"fague" which I assume you mean "vague".

Contradictions point out to me. You will probably get it wrong, or misunderstood as your missing a lot of what I say which is in black and white..

is it possible you can answer the question a few people would like to know "what different types of squatting are there?"

your contradictions:sully:

They know it was squatters because they were at the scene and admitted to causing the fire...

report in newspaper:

Last night's blaze, whose cause is at this time unknown, was the second major fire in Waterford's inner city in less than three weeks. On the 6th of the month an even larger and more devastating fire had engulfed and destroyed a commercial building on Thomas Street.

sully:

I stand by my assumption that squatters MAY HAVE started this fire ACCIDENTALY.

Sully

Right will you read my damn post? Your question is bloody well answered!!

I never contradicted myself. I never wrote the artilce in the paper, which never mentioned squatters.

Fire on Catherdral St - I said, and I stand by, that it MAY HAVE started by squatters ACCIDENTALY. Iv said this many times and have not gone back.

The fire by the Forum - I said, and I stand by it, that I do belive that fire WAS started ACCIDENTALY by squatters. I read it in a local paper, thats IF I recalled it correctly. If not, fair enough.

The above has been said and repeated many a time. If you cant grasp it, then there isnt really anything I can do about that. I made it pretty clear, your either ignoring it on purpose or you simply cant understand simple english.

_FRANK_

your answer as follows:

By law, squatting is the one thing maybe. However, you can either squat by breaking into a house and claiming "we have rights, even tho we dont really own the building"

and next you say we have the different type of squatting which we all know is not squatting:

or squatting by saying that a piece of land is yours.

you can't claim squatters rights on land that is yours.

so we know by law squatting is one thing,but,what is the other type of squatting?

They know it was squatters because they were at the scene and admitted to causing the fire...

this was you lying to the general public then.

jdb66

[QUOTE I never contradicted myself[/QUOTE]

In post #22,on this thread you wrote "It probably is" at Merlantes suggestion that it could have been "Scumbags" who were to blame for starting the fire.

On to post,#24 you wrote "They know it was squatters" (again,who is"they" BTW?) which ties in with you're original assumption that it was squatters who started the fire.

Now,on to post #46.Only from this point on the thread did you start writing that "IT MAY"have been squatters.

Correct me please if i'm wrong here,but are they not contradictions?

P.S.
I assumed you meant IMPLY and not EMPLY in an earlier post.

Sully

_FRANK_ wrote: »

your answer as follows:and next you say we have the different type of squatting which we all know is not squatting:you can't claim squatters rights on land that is yours.

Isnt the Pat Kenny case about land and not a house?

this was you lying to the general public then.

Sorry, what? Im not part of the Waterford People so no, I did no lying. If you think they published inaccurate statements, take them up on it..

Sully

jdb66 wrote: »

I never contradicted myself

In post #22,on this thread you wrote "It probably is" at Merlantes suggestion that it could have been "Scumbags" who were to blame for starting the fire.

On to post,#24 you wrote "They know it was squatters" (again,who is"they" BTW?) which ties in with you're original assumption that it was squatters who started the fire.

Now,on to post #46.Only from this point on the thread did you start writing that "IT MAY"have been squatters.

Correct me please if i'm wrong here,but are they not contradictions?

P.S.
I assumed you meant IMPLY and not EMPLY in an earlier post.

Ill make this simple for you, as you seem to find it hard to read simple plain English.

- Two fires in Waterford:- 1) Cathedral Sq. and 2) House located near Forum Waterford.

- Reported in local press (the "they") that no.2 was accidentally set by squatters (IIRC). I said this all along.

- Assumed by me that no.1 may also have been squatters, or may have been scumbags in the area like suggested by merlante. I said this all along.

P.S. Thanks, didnt even notice that mistake

_FRANK_

Sully wrote: »

Isnt the Pat Kenny case about land and not a house?

question still not answered.we all know squatting a house or land is still squatting.so i'll ask you again....

WHAT OTHER TYPES OF SQUATTING ARE THERE?

It's a simple enough question even a child could have a go at answering it.
so why is it so hard for you to answer the question.you where the one to mention that there is indeed "another type of squatting"

Sully wrote: »

Sorry, what? Im not part of the Waterford People so no, I did no lying. If you think they published inaccurate statements, take them up on it..

you are part of this forum which is open to the general public,who mentioned anything about the waterford people.I certainly didn't.

Sully wrote: »

They know it was squatters because they were at the scene and admitted to causing the fire...

You lied and now you are saying "i did no lying"which is another lie.You wrote the above statement we all know it's a lie and you have no proof to back it up.

jdb66

Ill make this simple for you, as you seem to find it hard to read simple plain English

.

No problem at all understanding English.

Do you feel all clever and witty now after coming up with that?

Have always thought that people who write,/say things like that about/to someone else do so to make themselves feel good/clever.

Quiet sad really.

- Two fires in Waterford:- 1) Cathedral Sq. and 2) House located near Forum Waterford.

OK.

- Reported in local press (the "they") that no.2 was accidentally set by squatters (IIRC). I said this all along.

Fair enough.

- Assumed by me that no.1 may also have been squatters,

Yeah.

or may have been scumbags in the area like suggested by merlante. I said this all along.

From post #22 you agreed "IT PROBABLY" was scumbags.

If i'm wrong about that i will hold my hands up to it and apologies unreservedly for it.

P.S. Thanks, didnt even notice that mistake

No problem.:)

jdb66

You wrote the above statement we all know it's a lie and you have no proof to back it up.

Is posting a statement like that and not having proof to back it up,not against the charter?