Occupy Galway Group (mod note added)

Irishgoatman

Hello world wrote: »

Here you go do u have a Licence for this occupy group?
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0030/sec0229.html#partxvi
"241.—The Minister may make regulations providing that any activity or class of activity to which the public have access and which takes place wholly or mainly in the open air or in a structure with no roof or a partial, temporary or retractable roof, a tent or other similar temporary structure to be an event for the purposes of this Part."

Check and mate

Not check mate I'm afraid.
That Act refers to "Events" of an entertaining nature. Also, the piece you have cut & pasted above, although not relevant, uses the word "may" not has or will.
The best article to look at is the one hippygran refers to in her post #1436.
That newspaper piece looks at the situation from a local Galway C.C. point of view.

Hello world

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Not check mate I'm afraid.
That Act refers to "Events" of an entertaining nature. Also, the piece you have cut & pasted above, although not relevant, uses the word "may" not has or will.
The best article to look at is the one hippygran refers to in her post #1436.
That newspaper piece looks at the situation from a local Galway C.C. point of view.

Didn't you guys have music at your little tent a couple of weeks back?
Also ""dancing, displays of public entertainment or any activity of a like kind"" and
Protesting is an activity
Yeah I saw that article but I'm sure with time they will find something, however I think what I have found is grounds to remove the tents and that god aweful shed tent hybrid

Irishgoatman

Hello world wrote: »

Didn't you guys have music at your little tent a couple of weeks back?
Also ""dancing, displays of public entertainment or any activity of a like kind"" and
Protesting is an activity
Yeah I saw that article but I'm sure with time they will find something, however I think what I have found is grounds to remove the tents and that god aweful shed tent hybrid

As you would expect, I disagree with you.

Will you please stop referring to me as a member of the camp. "I" did not have music anywhere, nor do "I" have a tent.
Your whole attitude and lack of respect is getting beyond a joke. Try paying attention to what people say.
I repeat, just for your benefit, I AM NOT A MEMBER OF THE O.G.

Hello world

Irishgoatman wrote: »

As you would expect, I disagree with you.

Will you please stop referring to me as a member of the camp. "I" did not have music anywhere, nor do "I" have a tent.
Your whole attitude and lack of respect is getting beyond a joke. Try paying attention to what people say.
I repeat, just for your benefit, I AM NOT A MEMBER OF THE O.G.

It's fine if you are not a member of the occupy groupe but do not tell me I'm wrong about something (when I'm not) then turn around and tell me that you actually have no clue as to what is going on

Looks like music to me

biko

Hello world wrote: »

Actually no eyre square is not zoned as a camping site therefore it's ilegeal to set up camp!

I think you're trying to muddle up the issues. They're not there to camp, they're there to protest. This entails putting up tents but they already have homes in the city.
The reason homeless people and tourists would camp in Eyre Square would simply to live there which wouldn't be allowed.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/23062-council-consult-lawyers-over-occupy-galway-eyre-square

Superintendent Marie Skehill said there was no obstruction or disturbance and people had a right to protest.

So please leave the "illegal" bit out until you have a Superintendent saying otherwise.

Oh and it's "you", not "u". Please refrain from text speak on boards. Thanks.

hippygran

Hello world wrote: »

Actually no eyre square is not zoned as a camping site therefore it's ilegeal to set up camp! Why do u think homeless people don't pitch tents at night? Because they would be removed

If it is illegal to set up camp, why does the Chief Superintendant of Galway say that the camp is breaking no laws? Are you really suggesting that you know the law better than her?

Hello world

hippygran wrote: »

If it is illegal to set up camp, why does the Chief Superintendant of Galway say that the camp is breaking no laws? Are you really suggesting that you know the law better than her?

Well perhaps not on the camping front but you are breaking the rules or laws or whatever it is by having the tents and large tent without a licence to hold an event. And I'm sure when they want you gone enough they will find a law that will allow them to remove you
Also just wondering if you are going to address any of te questions you were asked a few pages back or are you just going to ignore them as you have done thus far?

Hello world

biko wrote: »

I think you're trying to muddle up the issues. They're not there to camp, they're there to protest. This entails putting up tents but they already have homes in the city.
The reason homeless people and tourists would camp in Eyre Square would simply to live there which wouldn't be allowed.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/23062-council-consult-lawyers-over-occupy-galway-eyre-square

So please leave the "illegal" bit out until you have a Superintendent saying otherwise.

Oh and it's "you", not "u". Please refrain from text speak on boards. Thanks.

Yeah I admit I was wrong about the first bit about no camping (It's a bit mad they don't have a rule :P )
However I think the other links I posted are sufficient as a replacment.
Yeah sorry about saying u its a horrible habbit to get into

hippygran

Hello world wrote: »

Didn't you guys have music at your little tent a couple of weeks back?
Also ""dancing, displays of public entertainment or any activity of a like kind"" and
Protesting is an activity
Yeah I saw that article but I'm sure with time they will find something, however I think what I have found is grounds to remove the tents and that god aweful shed tent hybrid

I think the word 'may' is very relevant here. From what I read on your post, this 'may' give somebody reason to say that music can no longer be held there without a license. However, your link was to section 230 and you referred to section 241 in your post. I will take the time to read the parts between those two sections later in the day to see how they may apply to the camp. Thank you for pointing this out to me, we try to take care not to break any laws or statutes.

hippygran

Hello world wrote: »

Well perhaps not on the camping front but you are breaking the rules or laws or whatever it is by having the tents and large tent without a licence to hold an event. And I'm sure when they want you gone enough they will find a law that will allow them to remove you
Also just wondering if you are going to address any of te questions you were asked a few pages back or are you just going to ignore them as you have done thus far?

I don't ignore questions, I try to answer any questions that are directed to me personally, if I can. When I do try to answer questions I generally get a barrage of sarcasm, contempt, told I am emotive (which I admit to) etc. I don't spend all my time on this site so I miss many things that are posted. I spend several days at a time away from home and while I am not at home I don't get online much. Also I find the attitude of some of the posters on here very upsetting (that emotive thing again), which puts me off looking for a few days.
Which question in particular would you like me to try and answer?

Hello world

hippygran wrote: »

I think the word 'may' is very relevant here. From what I read on your post, this 'may' give somebody reason to say that music can no longer be held there without a license. However, your link was to section 230 and you referred to section 241 in your post. I will take the time to read the parts between those two sections later in the day to see how they may apply to the camp. Thank you for pointing this out to me, we try to take care not to break any laws or statutes.

Well I think it's not just for music I have a feeling it's for any sort of an event (and considering it started as a fb event) entairning or not requires a license once it has a tent or a partially/fully covered roof

hippygran

biko wrote: »

I think you're trying to muddle up the issues. They're not there to camp, they're there to protest. This entails putting up tents but they already have homes in the city.
The reason homeless people and tourists would camp in Eyre Square would simply to live there which wouldn't be allowed.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/23062-council-consult-lawyers-over-occupy-galway-eyre-square

So please leave the "illegal" bit out until you have a Superintendent saying otherwise.

Oh and it's "you", not "u". Please refrain from text speak on boards. Thanks.

Also, if a homeless person set up a tent with no security to keep them safe, they would be terrorized by the drunks at night, their tent would be jumped on, they would be abused etc. None of the homeless people who come to our camp for a cup of tea will try to sleep anywhere near the square because they don't consider it to be safe for them.

hippygran

Hello world wrote: »

Well I think it's not just for music I have a feeling it's for any sort of an event (and considering it started as a fb event) entairning or not requires a license once it has a tent or a partially/fully covered roof

As I said, I will look into it and pass any relevant information on to OG. If this turns out to be the case, we will be unable to have music at the camp. Incidentally, we are having a fundraiser evening, with music, at Fibber Magees on Sunday evening in aid of the Galway Simon Community. All fully licensed and legal, if anybody would care to come along.

Irishgoatman

Hello world wrote: »

That's fine if ur not a member but then don't tell me im wrong if you actually have no clue about it then turn around and say u actually don't have a clue

Can someone please translate this into english for me as I haven't a clue what is meant by this rant.

On second thoughts, don't bother. It really is a waste of time trying to talk to this poster.

Hello world

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Hello world wrote: »

That's fine if ur not a member but then don't tell me im wrong if you actually have no clue about it then turn around and say u actually don't have a clue

Can someone please translate this into english for me as I haven't a clue what is meant by this rant.

On second thoughts, don't bother. It really is a waste of time trying to talk to this poster.

And I think it's a waste of time talking to someone who can't use the quote function
I have edited the first post I hope it's easier to read

Irishgoatman

Hello world wrote: »

And I think it's a waste of time talking to someone who can't use the quote function
I have edited the first post I hope it's easier to read

I'm not sure if you're on some sort of medication but you are not making any sense to me at all.
"can't use the quote function"? told you I "had no clue what was going on"?.

Please do not bother to respond to this as I will no longer be reading your garbled postings. The effort to understand some of them is just too much trouble.

biko

Irishgoatman, chill on the attacks. No more warnings.

@Hello

@Hello world - I think you being a bit unfair:

Hello world

Deleted User wrote: »

@Hello world - I think you being a bit unfair:

Yeah I know but I'm on a iPhone so fixing the quotes he messed up would have been rather hard for me. But sure I will give it a go
Done

Hello world

Irishgoatman wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're on some sort of medication but you are not making any sense to me at all.
"can't use the quote function"? told you I "had no clue what was going on"?.

Please do not bother to respond to this as I will no longer be reading your garbled postings. The effort to understand some of them is just too much trouble.

Resorting to insults when you can't find an argument nothing new from the occupy supporters/group

Irishgoatman

biko wrote: »

Irishgoatman, chill on the attacks. No more warnings.

biko, I feel that this warning is totally unjustified.
I fail to see why my post is considered to be an attack whereas his garbled rants are obviously acceptable .

Hello World has been constantly referring to me as a member of the O.G. despite my telling him otherwise. He has accused me of messing up a quote, the wording of which he has now altered, when all I did was leave out a picture. Prior to him changing the wording it made no sense whatsoever. I admit that perhaps I should not have used the word "medication", perhaps the word "alcohol" would have been better.

If you now feel that I should be banned and Hello World should be allowed to continue, then so be it.

Irishgoatman

Hello world wrote: »

Resorting to insults when you can't find an argument nothing new from the occupy supporters/group

Here we go again.

I'm not the one looking for an argument.
Just you.

End of.

Hello world

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Here we go again.

I'm not the one looking for an argument.
Just you.

End of.

Post #1442
You started this argument (well perhaps I should have used the word debate instead)
If you want i can change post #1443 to say "they" instead of "you guys". I admit that was an error on my part. However the way u argued my point made me think you were apart of the group. ( you said it only refers to events of an entairning nature so I assumed you had been there and knew that there was no music playing during the time that the protest has been there)

ben.schlomo

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Here we go again.

I'm not the one looking for an argument.
Just you.

End of.

Irishgoatoatman you insulted him by saying he was on medication, a pretty unfair and childish comment in fairness. I didnt understand one of the posts he wrote but i was able to decipher the meaning fairly easily. And his rants as you put them are in no way insulting.

Irishgoatman

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Irishgoatoatman you insulted him by saying he was on medication, a pretty unfair and childish comment in fairness. I didnt understand one of the posts he wrote but i was able to decipher the meaning fairly easily. And his rants as you put them are in no way insulting.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.
If you, please, re-read my post you will see that I did not say he was on medication. My wording was "I'm not sure if......". Not the same thing.

But we'll leave it there as I have no intention of replying to any more of his strange postings.

Dan_Solo

"Well now your just being beyond moronic and I actually don't even know how to reply to something so stupid" is every bit as bad as "I'm not sure if you're on some sort of medication".
Why mod warnings for only one side?

Hello world

Dan_Solo wrote: »

"Well now your just being beyond moronic and I actually don't even know how to reply to something so stupid" is every bit as bad as "I'm not sure if you're on some sort of medication".
Why mod warnings for only one side?

Well when you are trying to have an adult discussion and hippygran come out with a completely sarcastic/useless comment it's beyond annoying and childish. And considering she keeps telling us that she is a middle aged wan with grandchildren you would think she would be able to have some level of debating skills. However yes I probably should have not said that.

WallyGUFC

Dan_Solo wrote: »

"Well now your just being beyond moronic and I actually don't even know how to reply to something so stupid" is every bit as bad as "I'm not sure if you're on some sort of medication".
Why mod warnings for only one side?

Because it's a common trend that OG members and sympathisers are resorting to insults and expletives on this thread when they are asked basic questions about what they believe in and what they're plans are. Everyone else is asking these questions. Asking a question is not abusing another poster.

Dan_Solo

Hello world wrote: »

Well when you are trying to have an adult discussion and hippygran come out with a completely sarcastic/useless comment it's beyond annoying and childish. And considering she keeps telling us that she is a middle aged wan with grandchildren you would think she would be able to have some level of debating skills. However yes I probably should have not said that.

I don't care what SHE said. What has that to do with anything?
Your reply to her was as abusive as anything Irishgoatman has come out with, yet only he get the mod warning.
Your repeat rant against hippygran doesn't do anything at all to explain this double standard.

Dan_Solo

WallyGUFC wrote: »

Because it's a common trend that OG members and sympathisers are resorting to insults and expletives on this thread when they are asked basic questions about what they believe in and what they're plans are. Everyone else is asking these questions. Asking a question is not abusing another poster.

Oh right, so the correct response to everything is now "Well now your just being beyond moronic and I actually don't even know how to reply to something so stupid"?
I couldn't care less what OG whoevers say, you're trying to say Hello World's abuse is OK because someone does it. A worthless line of reasoning.