Fire in Cathedral sq.

Sully

_FRANK_ wrote: »

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"

FINALLY! He sees my message. Iv said two types of squatting of the top of my head based on past events. Iv no idea if there are more possible squatting types and im not to bothered. Whats it to this conversation anyway? Iv mentioned two already, providing a list wont make a difference to whether or not squatters caused a fire.

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

I said that the fire by the Glen was caused by Squatters based on what I read in the Waterford People (a local news paper). Since I don't keep every paper I read and since they don't have the paper online, I cant back it up and you cant say im wrong.

I found it hard to get to understand the above message, I take it English isn't your first language? Sorry, its a tad bit difficult!

jdb66 wrote: »

.

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.

Well to be fair, you asked questions I already answered in the topic. So... I don't see what's wrong with saying you don't understand simple English. As what I said in past posts was simple english and you didn't seem to understand it..

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.

Whats your point? I never disputed that :S

Sully

jdb66 wrote: »

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

The charter rule was more about the whole "I have my sources" comments without coming forward with who the source is (unless cleared with another mod, or regular on the board who can back it up).

In this case the comment im referring to was in a public paper several weeks ago where it would be impossible for me to reference as they don't do it online like the other local papers and I don't keep every paper lying around!

Unless you have a copy of the paper discussing the U Decor fire and the one around the corner from it, then you cant dispute what I said as at least I read the article. Yourself and Frank are biased as you don't like anyone speaking down about squatters or assuming they caused a fire.

_FRANK_

Sully wrote: »

FINALLY! He sees my message. Iv said two types of squatting of the top of my head based on past events.

Sully wrote: »

Iv no idea if there are more possible squatting types and im not to bothered.

you have no idea because you were wrong in assuming that there are different types of squatting.

Sully wrote: »

Whats it to this conversation anyway?

answering a question with a question for the second time.

Sully wrote: »

Iv mentioned two already, providing a list wont make a difference to whether or not squatters caused a fire.

excuses,excuses.

Sully wrote: »

I said that the fire by the Glen was caused by Squatters based on what I read in the Waterford People (a local news paper). Since I don't keep every paper I read and since they don't have the paper online, I cant back it up and you cant say im wrong.

oh yes i can you are very wrong infact if you read the newspaper report i left you on post number 25 you can see clearly that it makes no mention of your statement

Sully wrote: »

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

Sully wrote: »

I found it hard to get to understand the above message, I take it English isn't your first language? Sorry, its a tad bit difficult!

you assumed wrong again english is my first language and i'm from chapel lane,ballybricken,waterford city.

_FRANK_

Sully wrote: »

Unless you have a copy of the paper discussing the U Decor fire and the one around the corner from it, then you cant dispute what I said as at least I read the article. Yourself and Frank are biased as you don't like anyone speaking down about squatters or assuming they caused a fire.

you are the one being biased i'm keeping an open mind.i don't like to see anyone being talked down to btw and would you like it if i assumed that you started the fire and started posting that you already admitted to it?

jdb66

FINALLY! He sees my message.

You still don't see his.

I said that the fire by the Glen was caused by Squatters based on what I read in the Waterford People (a local news paper).

If it was in the paper it must be true then.

Since I don't keep every paper I read and since they don't have the paper online, I cant back it up and you cant say im wrong.

So that justifies you saying both fire were caused by squatters/scumbags?

I found it hard to get to understand the above message, I take it English isn't your first language? Sorry, its a tad bit difficult!

Translated = Sully only understands what he wants to and what suits him.

Well to be fair, you asked questions I already answered in the topic.

If you say so.Who am i to disagree with you.

So... I don't see what's wrong with saying you don't understand simple English. As what I said in past posts was simple english and you didn't seem to understand it..

Whats wrong with it is,it's ignorant and insulting.Par for the course with you though.

Again,i have no problem understanding the English language.It's understanding most of the BS you've posted,is where i have the problem.

Not for the first time on this board have you resorted to the above type of response to a poster.

Rather childish of you,is that,Sully.It's uncalled for and out of order.Doubt you'll see it that way though.

Whats your point? I never disputed that :S

I never said you disputed it.

My point is,this

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

You did'nt say this all along.You just jumped on that one from post #22.

If Merlante had suggested it was Romanies or Travellers,would you have gone along with that too?

jdb66

The charter rule was more about the whole "I have my sources" comments without coming forward with who the source is (unless cleared with another mod, or regular on the board who can back it up).

Translated = I'll move the goalposts when it suits me to do so.

So that comment was cleared before you posted it?

If so,by who?

Unless you have a copy of the paper discussing the U Decor fire and the one around the corner from it, then you cant dispute what I said as at least I read the article.

On the contrary,i can dispute anything i wish to do so.Reading into the above quote,it seems you're using that as a way of justifying all the BS that you've posted on this thread.

Yourself and Frank are biased as you don't like anyone speaking down about squatters or assuming they caused a fire.

How am i biased?

Have never been a squatter,don't know anyone who has been/is a squatter.

Would it be nearer the truth to say that you don't like being disagreed with and being pulled up on BS posts that you put up on this site.

Just because others opinions (on anything) differ from yours does not necessarily mean that they are wrong.Sometimes others are right and you're wrong.You just seem to take it all to personally when you are wrong about something instead of just admitting so and moving on.

Just my thoughts,feel free to shoot them down.

Sully

_FRANK_ wrote: »

you are the one being biased i'm keeping an open mind.i don't like to see anyone being talked down to btw and would you like it if i assumed that you started the fire and started posting that you already admitted to it?

You are in your eye keeping an open mind. You had a hissy fit over my comment that they MAY have caused the fire. Yet you never took up merlante for blaming it on scumbags. Clearly, its squatters your more concerned about.

jdb66 wrote: »

You still don't see his.

Nothing to see on my side. I made a comment about possibilites and your the only two to take objection and refuse to listen to anything.

If it was in the paper it must be true then.

Well, I doubt they made it up.

So that justifies you saying both fire were caused by squatters/scumbags?

I never said the first one was caused by scumbags. I just recalled what I read in a public paper. The second one was an assumption that it could be either based on previous events and general common sense. Of course, it would be anything such as an eletrical fault.

Translated = Sully only understands what he wants to and what suits him.

I didnt make the rule. If you feel im ignoring the charter, then take it up with any of the other mods on the forum.

If you say so.Who am i to disagree with you.

Aye. Tis true tho.

Whats wrong with it is,it's ignorant and insulting.Par for the course with you though.

Ah so you can judge me based on a very minor comment that one paper publicly stated it was squatter (IIRC) and the other one MAY have been caused by them? Ignorance, my arse!

Again,i have no problem understanding the English language.It's understanding most of the BS you've posted,is where i have the problem.

I have my doubts. I didnt post bull ****, assumptions are not "bull****". Saying something as fact is "bull****" if I can be proved wrong.

Not for the first time on this board have you resorted to the above type of response to a poster.Rather childish of you,is that,Sully.It's uncalled for and out of order.Doubt you'll see it that way though.

Well im trying to be fair. Frank put together a post that was barley legible. You asked me questions which I already answered and I pointed that out but you kept asking. That to me, shows a lack of understanding in English.

I never said you disputed it.

My point is,this



You did'nt say this all along.You just jumped on that one from post #22.

If Merlante had suggested it was Romanies or Travellers,would you have gone along with that too?

Travellers maybe, Romanies(?) maybe not. Depends on why the implication is being made.

jdb66 wrote: »

Translated = I'll move the goalposts when it suits me to do so.

Addressed above.

So that comment was cleared before you posted it?

If so,by who?

Someone clearly didnt understand what I said earlier.

On the contrary,i can dispute anything i wish to do so.Reading into the above quote,it seems you're using that as a way of justifying all the BS that you've posted on this thread.

How can you dispute it if you cant prove me wrong? I cant prove me right but you certinally cant prove me wrong. If you dont believe that I read it in the paper, such is life.

How am i biased?

Have never been a squatter,don't know anyone who has been/is a squatter.

Ah so your not biased, I assumed you were a squatter or had squatter connections. I withdraw the comment and my apologises!

Would it be nearer the truth to say that you don't like being disagreed with and being pulled up on BS posts that you put up on this site.

Is it not the first time you have taken issue with one of my comments? No? Must be a few other threads I was rambling BS and you took me up on I assume.. by the sounds of things.

I have no problem in the world someone disagreeing with me. Christ, if we all agreed with each other the world would be some dry place. In this instance, we can only agree to disagree. Which is why, im not going to bother talking about it anymore. Im not going to withdraw the comment, but if someone can prove I got the whole thing wrong that I have no problem doing so and apologising.

Just because others opinions (on anything) differ from yours does not necessarily mean that they are wrong.Sometimes others are right and you're wrong.You just seem to take it all to personally when you are wrong about something instead of just admitting so and moving on.

Without a doubt. But whos to say im actually wrong here? You havent proved that I am wrong.

Just my thoughts,feel free to shoot them down.

Your entitled to them, and by all means take me up with them. We obviously will never agree on it, as you dont like me (but its fine for merlante :P) to make assumptions or say one fire was caused by squatters without having the paper to back it up. I can understand your issue with the second one, but im not going to withdraw it simply because I never kept the paper!

Sully

_FRANK_ wrote: »

you have no idea because you were wrong in assuming that there are different types of squatting.
answering a question with a question for the second time.excuses,excuses.

I never said they were offical types of squatting. There just two I would refeer to as different types based on my own opinion.

oh yes i can you are very wrong infact if you read the newspaper report i left you on post number 25 you can see clearly that it makes no mention of your statement

Different paper was it not? EDIT: Just checked, its not refering to the fire by The Forum.

you assumed wrong again english is my first language and i'm from chapel lane,ballybricken,waterford city.

Fair enough, thought otherwise. Apologises if I offended.

jdb66

We obviously will never agree on it, as you dont like me

A bit busy at the moment so will reply to this one for now.

Whether we agree or disagree dos'nt mean i do/don't like you.

I don't know you,have never met you.

Liking/disliking you has absolutely nothing to do with it.Is there some rule on here that demands everybody who posts on here has to like you? Do you not find what you just wrote a tad childish?

In life (and on here) you will get people who don't see eye to eye with you.That dos'nt necessarily mean they have it in for you or don't like you.

If you see this as a personal thing,then thats up to you.

To me you're just another poster on a forum,nothing more nothing less.

Sully

jdb66 wrote: »

A bit busy at the moment so will reply to this one for now.

Whether we agree or disagree dos'nt mean i do/don't like you.

I don't know you,have never met you.

Liking/disliking you has absolutely nothing to do with it.Is there some rule on here that demands everybody who posts on here has to like you? Do you not find what you just wrote a tad childish?

In life (and on here) you will get people who don't see eye to eye with you.That dos'nt necessarily mean they have it in for you or don't like you.

If you see this as a personal thing,then thats up to you.

To me you're just another poster on a forum,nothing more nothing less.

Quote the rest of that line. Thats not what was implied. Im not taking this personally at all.

All I did was say what I recal reading in the paper and assumed (probably incorrectly) that the same may have happened. Im not giving out about squatters or calling them arsonists. There a group of people so its not defmatory or personal to say they accidentaly caused a fire! This caused offense or upset to yourself and Frank who dont like squatters being mentioned unless its fact (and by the sounds, the paper cant be a trusted source either). You didnt take up issue on merlantes post, so its either your targetting me or my comment about squatters which was not offensive in the slightest.

A complete over reaction imo. This thread has spawled on and rambled about such pointless stuff irrleavent to the topic which is all our faults.

Likewise, merlante saw some scumbags and suggested they could have caused it - which indeed they could have, its a possibility which I agreed with very early in this topic.

_FRANK_

Sully wrote: »

I never said they were offical types of squatting. There just two I would refeer to as different types based on my own opinion.

i didn't say that you said "they were offical types of squatting".you said that pat kennys squatting was a different TYPE of squatting.I want to know how is it different? Pat kenny is a squatter ffs he's claimed squatters rights therefore he is a squatter.

Sully wrote: »

Different paper was it not? EDIT: Just checked, its not refering to the fire by The Forum.

what dumbfounds me is your lack of understanding about the proof that has been placed before you on this thread.
the 25th post contains word for word a report from the Irish times 3 fires 3 locations:A tourist bus outside dooleys hotel,you decor and the glen.you said it's not refering to the fire beside the forum.

the forum is in the glen,the forum is right in the middle of the glen,all the buildings in the glen are in eyeshot of the forum.
so you are still wrong about your statement.Nobody has been arrested and the cops still don't know who did it.
so going around this thread and seeing your statement

Sully wrote: »

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

really not only offends me but also offends 1 billion people that are squatters.also you are calling the sargent in charge of these cases a liar by standing by this statement.you should withdraw the statement as it's not true.10,000 euros i offered you if you could prove it right,and you haven't.

Sully wrote: »

Fair enough, thought otherwise. Apologises if I offended.

Sully

_FRANK_ wrote: »

i didn't say that you said "they were offical types of squatting".you said that pat kennys squatting was a different TYPE of squatting.I want to know how is it different? Pat kenny is a squatter ffs he's claimed squatters rights therefore he is a squatter.

I never said he was not a squatter. He is arguing over land, not a house he decided to break into and refuse to leave when asked. My point was its not the same, at least, not in my eyes.

what dumbfounds me is your lack of understanding about the proof that has been placed before you on this thread.
the 25th post contains word for word a report from the Irish times 3 fires 3 locations:A tourist bus outside dooleys hotel,you decor and the glen.you said it's not refering to the fire beside the forum.

the forum is in the glen,the forum is right in the middle of the glen,all the buildings in the glen are in eyeshot of the forum.
so you are still wrong about your statement.Nobody has been arrested and the cops still don't know who did it.
so going around this thread and seeing your statement

Sorry, I see the reference in that article now to the fire. Fair enough it doesn't say who did it, but I was referring to a local paper I would have sworn said it.

really not only offends me but also offends 1 billion people that are squatters.also you are calling the sargent in charge of these cases a liar by standing by this statement.you should withdraw the statement as it's not true.10,000 euros i offered you if you could prove it right,and you haven't.

When did you offer me 10k?! Listen, I didn't mean to offend. I am very surprised to hear your offended as the comment was so minor. Alas, that's life I suppose. I will contact the paper and see if I can find out what the hell I read, is its bugging me and its upsetting you. If I got it wrong, then that's my fault and I don't have any problem apologising. Its possible I did get it wrong, but I could have sworn that's what I read.

echosound

_FRANK_ wrote: »

.....really not only offends me but also offends 1 billion people that are squatters.

Squatters are offended? boo hoo. Squatters offend many other people by the very nature of what they do.
Off you go and get your own property via the correct channels like the rest of the known universe does (be that land or structures or even a tree if you are that way inclined) instead of occupying someone else's property illegally so you can have an address to sign on at.

_FRANK_

echosound wrote: »

Squatters are offended? boo hoo. Squatters offend many other people by the very nature of what they do.

yes that is correct they do.I do know a lot of squatters that are like that but i also know alot of squatters that are very good natured.

echosound wrote: »

Off you go and get your own property via the correct channels like the rest of the known universe does (be that land or structures or even a tree if you are that way inclined) instead of occupying someone else's property illegally so you can have an address to sign on at.

well i have a property already paid in full.so you presuming that i am not in possesion of a property or even that i sign on is totally inacurate.:D

Sully

Okay well as promised I sent an email to the Waterford People yesterday. Here is what I sent..

Hi,

Hope you are keeping well!

I was wondering could you shed some light on an article in your paper
a few weeks back. It was in relation to the fires that happened around
Waterford, in particular the one by The Forum nightclub. I thought I
read in the article something about squatters being present and
accidentally causing the fire trying to get warm. However, I no longer
have the paper so I cant go back and check. I would usually check
online but as far as I am aware there is no facility to read the paper
online.

I don't think the person who wrote the article was named, so I was
hoping you might remember it?

Many Thanks, much appreciated!

Regards,
Kevin

Response::

Hi Kevin,

Yeah I remember the article but it was not written by me but a colleague
Esther Hayden. It was the same week there was a fire at You Décor and what
happened was that a derelict house by the Forum went on fire. One man was in
the house at the time and according to gardai he was a squatter who lit a
fire inside trying to keep warm.

Now, I think this proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the fire was caused by a squatter who tried to keep warm, as I have been saying all along. The paper confirmed the article and the gardai were their source. Now, ill send you my bank details for that money you promised me!

(Im sure you will raise another objection tho.)

_FRANK_

ok fair enough but does the "waterford people newspaper" still exist.i'm not too sure maybe you could shed some light on that.

ec18

ah yes it does

_FRANK_

just found the same report in the waterford news and star

http://archives.tcm.ie/waterfordnews/2008/03/14/story28083.asp

fricatus

_FRANK_ wrote: »

ok fair enough but does the "waterford people newspaper" still exist.i'm not too sure maybe you could shed some light on that.

It will be in any petrol station or newsagent you care to visit in the Waterford area this very afternoon.

_FRANK_

fricatus wrote: »

It will be in any petrol station or newsagent you care to visit in the Waterford area this very afternoon.

would ballybricken be in the waterford area do you think?or is that outside the waterford area being that it's just outside the city walls.besides the waterford people has just been accuired by INM since the 7th of febuary.

Sully

It covers Waterford City & County. Its a new enough news paper run by a group known as the "People Newspapers" and have seperate editions for Wexford, Wicklow and Carlow (maybe more). The Waterford People covers everywhere in the city and county and since ballybricken is in Waterford City then yes the paper will be available there. Its released every Tuesday.

http://squibble.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055219183

Regardless, what I said was correct. Squatters DID cause the fire by the Glen. The source was the paper, as I said all along and it was confirmed this morning by the press what I read was correct. The paper said that the Gardai provided the information (and I doubt the gardai or the press are liying). Therefore, its POSSIBLE the same happened in Cathedral Sq.

When do you want to send me the money then?!

Sully

_FRANK_ wrote: »

just found the same report in the waterford news and star

http://archives.tcm.ie/waterfordnews/2008/03/14/story28083.asp

If you read the article, it doesn't directly blame the squatters but does say they were there.

The third took place at 2pm in derelict buildings in The Glen, where a number of homeless people had been squatting.

Funny, iv been saying all along that its common for squatters to occupy derelict buildings.

kensutz

Wouldn't it just be easy to lock the thread and forget about the matters :rolleyes:

_FRANK_

Sully wrote: »

If you read the article, it doesn't directly blame the squatters but does say they were there.
Funny, iv been saying all along that its common for squatters to occupy derelict buildings.

yes nobody disputed that squatters actually squat abandoned buildings.that's common place among squatters.if you read it more carfully the article says:

Meanwhile, two other fires quite close to the You Décor site are under investigation by gardaí.

“The three fires are being investigated separately at the moment,” explained Sgt Larry Langton.

The second fire occurred when a tourist bus was set on alight outside Dooley’s Hotel at

4.10 early Friday morning.

The third took place at 2pm in derelict buildings in The Glen, where a number of homeless people had been squatting.

Anyone with information should contact Waterford gardaí on (051) 305300."

Now the report states that the third fire took place in derelict buildings,where a number of homeless people had been squatting.that doesn't mean they were still there at the time of the fire.why would the garda be investigating the the fire?if as you say,the squatters already admitted to causing the fire.

Sully

Sorry, but the gardai have already came out to the press and said the squatters caused it and were present.

An investigation will always continue, even if the cause is known and admitted to. Even in the case of a murder - the gardai always do an investigation.

No point rambling on any further, iv proven my case. Squatters caused the fire according to the Gardai in a report in local press.

_FRANK_

Sully wrote: »

Sorry, but the gardai have already came out to the press and said the squatters caused it and were present.

where's this report in the local press?can you quote what the garda said?

Sully wrote: »

An investigation will always continue, even if the cause is known and admitted to. Even in the case of a murder - the gardai always do an investigation.

An investigation is to find out a number of things in any case.In the case of a murder do you honestly think the garda still investigate the murder after the person has admitted to the murder?Investigations on the gardas behalf will not continue after the case has been solved.

Sully wrote: »

No point rambling on any further, iv proven my case. Squatters caused the fire according to the Gardai in a report in local press.

You have not proven anything.according to the report homeless people HAD BEEN squatting in the house.In anycase you cannot claim squatters rights in this country as there is no squatters rights in this country and if you cannot claim squatters rights then you are not a squatter.why do you think Pat Kenny has agreed to buy Gorse Hill.After legal advice he found out he had no rights.

Sully

Oh god, I give up. Iv already got the bloody press to confirm that the article which blaimed squatters WAS published. Iv quoted both emails. If your going to ignore it, then ill just stop posting.

Fact: According to Gardai, in an article in the Waterford People (confirmed by the paper today), squatters were present in the house and the fire was started accidently when the squatter light a fire to keep warm. You can not dispute it. Just because another paper left out that one part of the detail doesnt prove anything.

Opinion, based on previous fact: The fire on Cathedral Sq. MAY have been caused by sqautters. Likewise, it MAY have been caused by trouble makers who were witnessed in the area. As of yet, nobody has came out and pointed blame.

End of my part of this conversation, iv proved my point.

robinblinds

Ok Ok....I did it.

Now give me back my lighter.

SUNGOD

come on sully get off the fence what do you think really happened ?:D

Sully

robinblinds wrote: »

Ok Ok....I did it.

Now give me back my lighter.

No, its cool. I want it.

SUNGOD wrote: »

come on sully get off the fence what do you think really happened ?:D

A certain president from a certian country felt terrorists were present. The idea was to smoke them out... but eh, it went on fire instead.