Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Zero Tolerance for Dublin City Centre, would it work?

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Ben D Bus wrote: »
    I only spoke of crime prevention. Do you object to this? To solve a crime requires a crime to be committed. Which means somebody becoming a victim of crime. Do you want to wait for this to happen before dealing with an issue?

    I have simply said the scourge of city centre junkies needs to be dealt with. And that it's better to prevent a crime than to solve one. Which part of that do you specifically disagree with?
    My problem with this is that your version of "crime prevention" is "to be solved by pushing [an entire population] out of sight". Welcome to social cleansing as a crime-fighting technique. Lets move everyone whose appearance offends Ben out to the 101st kilometre

    If someone commits a crime then they get punished. If someone does not commit a crime then they do not get punished. That is a fundamental basis of the law. To argue that people should be arrested or moved out of the city because you think that they might commit a crime is... well, so obviously wrong as to not need an explanation. I hope


  • Options
    #33
    moxin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,203 ✭✭✭moxin


    alastair wrote: »
    And those who aren't intimidated by a few junkies or spides here and there of course. It's actually pretty jammers - you should summon up the courage to check it out.

    Office workers who work in town contribute to the jammers. They do leave once their working day is over for their commute home, they don't live in town for the reasons outlined.


  • Options
    #34
    SimonTemplar
    Registered Users Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭SimonTemplar


    P.Walnuts wrote: »
    The junkies will literally not bother anyone but other junkies. The only danger to the average person is phone snatching from what I can see.

    I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. A junkie following me for about 10 seconds with their face right up against mine asking for change is very unpleasant and intimidating. It happens to me a few times a year.

    A junkie also randomly walked up to me and punched me in the chest on O'Connell St in broad daylight while saying he will shove my glasses down my throat.



    I've been living in Dublin for 6 years and I always have to have my guard up when in the city centre. The city had gone to the dogs


  • Options
    #35
    bombidol
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,638 ✭✭✭bombidol


    "That could have been out of resignation that he simply wasn't going to get a job anyway, due to his address, accent, education history etc."

    This is simply thinking too deeply about this issue. I was almost one of the gang lots of my family still are. There's no philosophy involved, there's just free money and only saps work when you can be given everything for free mentality. And even that is too deep for their minds.
    Talk to any social worker or anyone who works in community outreach programs, I have, they will write a paper on social injustice and inequality to secure funding and public sympathy from the suburban wasteland dwellers but will tell you to your face that they want to dig a big hole.


  • Options
    #36
    ProudDUB
    Registered Users Posts: 11,569 ✭✭✭✭ProudDUB


    P.Walnuts wrote: »
    The junkies will literally not bother anyone but other junkies. The only danger to the average person is phone snatching from what I can see.

    Rubbish. I used to live in Dublin 1, in an apartment behind Connolly Station. It was right across the street from the methadone clinic off Amiens St. Trust me, I personally witnessed a lot of crap that was a hell of a lot worse than simply junkies bothering other junkies. So did my neighbours and friends and family who came to visit me, or who worked in the area.

    I really wish people would stop attacking other people who simply want to be able to go about their business in the city centre, without fearing for their safety & or having to put up with the mental anguish that comes with always worrying about it. We are not cruel, heartless Nazi types who want to ring fence anyone who is does not fit a certain demographic off in some sort of Siberian gulag, where they will never be heard from again.

    Nor do we want the city centre cleanzed of all its character and turned into a sterile Disneyesque theme park for the tourists. We just want to be able to get a train, or pop to the local shops for a loaf of bread, or go out for a pint, or walk home from work, without having to worry what will happen to us. Is that so bloody wrong?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    JustAddWater
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,990 ✭✭✭JustAddWater


    Reekwind wrote: »
    Probably because Dublin is a real city, not some Potemkin village to show the tourists. And I'd rather the Guards were out solving real crimes

    So phone robberies, bike robberies and banging up on heroin to name but a few, are not real crimes???


  • Options
    #38
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    moxin wrote: »
    Office workers who work in town contribute to the jammers. They do leave once their working day is over for their commute home, they don't live in town for the reasons outlined.

    They might contribute - but primarily it's shoppers. I've lived in the city centre for over a decade. There's all sorts of people to be found here - no need to take refuge in Dundrum SC.


  • Options
    #39
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    ProudDUB wrote: »
    Is that so bloody wrong?
    When your solution is to move a complete subsection of the community to the outskirts of the city then yes, yes it is "bloody wrong"

    Increased Garda presence is fine and better treatment for junkies is fine. What's not fine is suggesting that the clinics, and the local people that they serve, be moved to some sort of Hamsterdam in a M50 industrial estate. That is social cleansing, pure and simple
    We are not cruel, heartless Nazi types who want to ring fence anyone who is does not fit a certain demographic off in some sort of Siberian gulag, where they will never be heard from again.
    The language used by some in thread, and the general 'clear them off the streets' sentiment, is in fact little different to Nazi and Soviet attitudes to 'asocials' and 'socially harmful elements', respectively. That you'd condemn them to Clondalkin rather than Chukotka doesn't make it that much less unpleasant
    JustAddWater wrote:
    So phone robberies, bike robberies and banging up on heroin to name but a few, are not real crimes???
    You didn't read post #12, did you?


  • Options
    #40
    poolboy
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭poolboy


    I already have zero tolerance for Dublin.


  • Options
    #41
    Hootanany
    Registered Users Posts: 5,477 ✭✭✭Hootanany


    Why not get all registered Heroin users to a big facility make them live there and control their intake and seen them off it.
    Solves the problem with them on the streets and cuts the pushers out as well.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    P.Walnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 4,769 ✭✭✭P.Walnuts


    Hootanany wrote: »
    Why not get all registered Heroin users to a big facility make them live there and control their intake and seen them off it.
    Solves the problem with them on the streets and cuts the pushers out as well.

    So prison essentially?


  • Options
    #43
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,969 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    There are too many drug treatment centres in the city. It's a small city relatively speaking, and that's why the problem seems so large.

    There is s treatment centre near Christchurch, and another on the quays opposite the
    Four Courts, at a bus stop too. Intimidating? Yes. For me, not a tourist, just trying to get home.

    Because there are so many treatment centres in the city, the addicts are commuting in on their free bus Luas Dart card all day. And clogging up the Boardwalk, and all the rest of it. It is not nice at all. And I don't care if we cleanse the place to Gulag proportions, those living and working and paying for all this sh!t deserve to enjoy the city. I am mad as hell, because the junkies don't care who they intimidate, they just don't care. And there is zero consequence for their actions.

    But if I parked in the wrong place I'd be clamped. No question.

    Better move them out really. I'm sick of it. Really fed up. And we are paying for all this, twice, when you think about it.

    Dublin is a great place, but it is being ruined.


  • Options
    #44
    Hootanany
    Registered Users Posts: 5,477 ✭✭✭Hootanany


    P.Walnuts wrote: »
    So prison essentially?

    No controlled environment stay there till clean what the problem with that, Disturbed people are locked away are you Ok with that?


  • Options
    #45
    Ben D Bus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,119 ✭✭✭Ben D Bus


    Reekwind wrote: »
    What's not fine is suggesting that the clinics, and the local people that they serve, be moved to some sort of Hamsterdam in a M50 industrial estate.

    Do they only serve local people? Genuine question.

    My understanding was that most drug treatment centres are in or about the city centre and that junkies from all over the city travel into town for their methadone.

    My strong preference is for local clinics serving local people citywide. The issue here of course is NIMBYism and local political interference.


  • Options
    #46
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    Mixed housing is ultimately to blame. For some reason certain liberal types think it horrific if parts of a city are gentrified and the poor are pushed out. Why have swathes of unemployed people living in the city centre beside all of the jobs?


  • Options
    #47
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,333 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    Thomas D wrote: »
    Mixed housing is ultimately to blame. For some reason certain liberal types think it horrific if parts of a city are gentrified and the poor are pushed out. Why have swathes of unemployed people living in the city centre beside all of the jobs?
    For starters maybe they will be able to get one of those jobs, and secondly do you think that people living in the city centre should be relocated to other parts of the county/country just because they lose their jobs?

    Edit: "all of the jobs" are not in the city centre either.


  • Options
    #48
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    Frank Grimes wrote: »
    For starters maybe they will be able to get one of those jobs, and secondly do you think that people living in the city centre should be relocated to other parts of the county/country just because they lose their jobs?

    Edit: "all of the jobs" are not in the city centre either.

    Do you think the people the OP is talking about have jobs? Yes, they should be relocated to the edge of the city. They can stay in the city centre if they can afford to the rental prices like the rest of us.


  • Options
    #49
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,333 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    Thomas D wrote: »
    Do you think the people the OP is talking about have jobs?
    I don't know them so I can't really answer that, I assume you don't think all unemployed people act in that manner though? Or attend methadone clinics? Because that's what your sweeping generalisation implies.
    Yes, they should be relocated to the edge of the city. They can stay in the city centre if they can afford to the rental prices like the rest of us.
    So going by your 'logic' all unemployed people should be relocated from the edges of the city, as naturally we don't really want their 'types' around here either, or is there some sort of pecking order that you have in mind? Is social housing/rent allowance/general unemployment whilst living somewhere only acceptable to you when it's out of sight and in suburbs? Why should someone have to forgo their housing, regardless of where it is, just because they are unemployed?


  • Options
    #50
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    Frank Grimes wrote: »
    I don't know them so I can't really answer that, I assume you don't think all unemployed people act in that manner though? Or attend methadone clinics? Because that's what your sweeping generalisation implies.

    So going by your 'logic' all unemployed people should be relocated from the edges of the city, as naturally we don't really want their 'types' around here either, or is there some sort of pecking order that you have in mind? Is social housing/rent allowance/general unemployment whilst living somewhere only acceptable to you when it's out of sight and in suburbs? Why should someone have to forgo their housing, regardless of where it is, just because they are unemployed?

    Yes. I'd rather live in a city with professional go getters and not have to witness scumbags.


  • Options
    #51
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,333 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    Thomas D wrote: »
    Yes. I'd rather live in a city with professional go getters and not have to witness scumbags.
    Ok, so anyone who is unemployed/on rent allowance/in social housing is a "scumbag" - fantastic attitude you have there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    P.Walnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 4,769 ✭✭✭P.Walnuts


    Frank Grimes wrote: »
    Ok, so anyone who is unemployed/on rent allowance/in social housing is a "scumbag" - fantastic attitude you have there.

    I wonder if you live in the scumbag quadrant and you get a job, do you immediately move into the go-getters quadrant, or is there a probabtion period?


  • Options
    #53
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,333 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    P.Walnuts wrote: »
    I wonder if you live in the scumbag quadrant and you get a job, do you immediately move into the go-getters quadrant, or is there a probabtion period?
    The 'scumbags' don't get jobs though; they're all banished to the suburbs where there are no jobs because all the jobs are in the city centre.


  • Options
    #54
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    Frank Grimes wrote: »
    The 'scumbags' don't get jobs though; they're all banished to the suburbs where there are no jobs because all the jobs are in the city centre.

    Let the free market decide. Everyone can live whereever the hell they like....once they pay they can afford it.


  • Options
    #55
    Ole Rodrigo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,013 ✭✭✭Ole Rodrigo


    Thomas D wrote: »
    Let the free market decide. Everyone can live whereever the hell they like....once they pay they can afford it.

    Theres a good article in the Guardian today warning of the dangers of this:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-capitalism-marx-two-americas-wire


  • Options
    #56
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,333 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    Thomas D wrote: »
    Let the free market decide. Everyone can live whereever the hell they like....once they pay they can afford it.
    Well that doesn't happen here thankfully, so you'll just have to put up with all the "scumbags" who get state assistance, or just plain don't have a job and may not even get benefits, whether you like it or not.


  • Options
    #57
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    Frank Grimes wrote: »
    Well that doesn't happen here thankfully, so you'll just have to put up with all the "scumbags" who get state assistance, or just plain don't have a job and may not even get benefits, whether you like it or not.

    I know. The guardian readers can just endure the fruits of their housing policies.


  • Options
    #58
    Hootanany
    Registered Users Posts: 5,477 ✭✭✭Hootanany


    Great to see my option has been ignored by the do gooders go do gooders.


  • Options
    #59
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,333 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    Thomas D wrote: »
    I know. The guardian readers can just endure the fruits of their housing policies.
    You do realise that not every proponent of social housing/state assistance etc. is a bleeding heart, middle class liberal/PC Brigade card carrier, right?


  • Options
    #60
    HomelessMidge
    Registered Users Posts: 334 ✭✭HomelessMidge


    Frank Grimes wrote: »
    You do realise that not every proponent of social housing/state assistance etc. is a bleeding heart, middle class liberal/PC Brigade card carrier, right?

    Just to mention I'm from the south inner city and many of my school mates are now finishing college with 4 year degrees. Maybe 70% of them live in and around flats. So not everyone who lives in social housing is a drain on society!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    Frank Grimes wrote: »
    You do realise that not every proponent of social housing/state assistance etc. is a bleeding heart, middle class liberal/PC Brigade card carrier, right?

    "anyone who is unemployed/on rent allowance/in social housing is a "scumbag""

    "every proponent of social housing/state assistance etc. is a bleeding heart, middle class liberal/PC "

    Guess which logical fallacy you are guilty of?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement