The Frederick St protest and reaction

yourdeadwright

DwightSchrute1 wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I think its the timing of the whole thing that has people upset 
New Garda commissioner with Mi5 links is only in the door, Then that van last registered to the Manchester police force turns up in Dublin with English reg ,Masked men and not taxed and no insurances, No id (some claim they didn't need them so say they did)  
The Garda released in there statement they checked and the Van was taxed , which is a lie you can check online yourself, It hasn;t been taxed since 2014 , 
I'm not saying any of the above is right or wrong but its what has upset some people 
Then on top of that  the new commissioner made a statement last month that the biggest threat currently to Irish people is " Republican paramilitaries " which raised serious eyebrows , As its clear its the drug gangs and the problems they have been causing are far worse in current times 
Its easy to see why the Sinn Fein heads are worried when that came from a former PSI officer's mouth whos father was killed by the IRA, Its very very out of touch of what currently happing and seems obvious he would have problem with Republicans due to his past, who wouldn't to be fair to the man , 
Again i'm not saying i agree or its right  , I'm just saying this is why u'll see a lot of people on Facebook and what not giving out,

You hardly think that this operation was organised by the new Commissioner.

A run of the mill deployment of the Garda Public Order unit does not need to be presanctioned by the Commissioner, it would be done by local level management.

More than likely that Drew Harris would not have known anything about this incident until it took place and received media attention.

As i said its all about timing, 
Iv no idea who organised it , more than likely your probably right but you can understand why people who already have a anxious veiw of him would add this to there theory's

LuckyLloyd

10000maniacs wrote: »

Seriously? The next time you go on holiday how would you like a posse of squatters living in your house when you return "peacefully" (passively aggressively) refusing to leave?

That's not what has happened in these cases, it's not what would be planned to happen and you damn well know it. This is nothing to do with wanting to take lived in houses off people.

Amirani

Amirani wrote: »

I know, that's why I'm blaming all parties. I'm particularly calling out Sinn Fein for hypocrisy though, as they're part of the problem yet claim it's all central Government's fault.

The height restriction issue isn't really going to solve the crisis though. The alternative proposed height restriction was only 4m higher. That's all it came down to.

How much do you actually know about DCC activities? What about the disused property register, that every single FG and most FF members of the Council opposed?

There was also a motion recently, which all but one FG councillor supported, which was to recognise and reject the inadequate policies of the then-Minister for the Environment Simon Coveney's 'plan' for homeless families. Even the fg councillors themselves seem fed up with central government.

Wheeliebin30

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It isn't reported in that article, but you should know that the height restrictions were agreed to by councillors within all the major parties.

Sinn Fein, contrary to popular opinion, does not control DCC.

They have the most seats though.

DwightSchrute1

yourdeadwright wrote: »

As i said its all about timing, 
Iv no idea who organised it , more than likely your probably right but you can understand why people who already have a anxious veiw of him would add this to there theory's

People with an anxious view of Drew Harris are adding 1 + 1 and getting 5. They are trying to find evidence to suit their theories when in reality there is no evidence at all.

Wheeliebin30

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

They have the most seats though.

15 seats out of 63. They come nowhere near controlling the Council.

yourdeadwright

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The St Annes issue is indicative of a societal problem with planning. This is out and out NIMBYism.

500 homes in perfect location rejected.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/plan-to-build-more-than-500-homes-near-dublin-s-st-anne-s-park-rejected-1.3627993?mode=amp

Will the protesters protest against the planners?

I'm not 100% sure but i  believe the land was give o the Vincentain Fathers by the council for a knock down price in the 50's with the arrangement it would be for the people and not sold to developers 
I could be wrong

yourdeadwright

DwightSchrute1 wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

As i said its all about timing, 
Iv no idea who organised it , more than likely your probably right but you can understand why people who already have a anxious veiw of him would add this to there theory's

People with an anxious view of Drew Harris are adding 1 + 1 and getting 5. They are trying to find evidence to suit their theories when in reality there is no evidence at all.

Possible, but when the Garda lied in there statement where they said the van was taxed , I know it means f8ck all but when they start getting caught out lieing .it just adds fuel to the fire to these people with theories that there is something to hide,

Our man with his hand on the pulse of the Irish workers (the other hand is over their necks), Joe Duffy, will apparently be covering the balaclava-lad heavies on Liveline today!

Gimme A Pound

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is people being charged unfairly high rents and being cruelly evicted from their homes in the 1800s a legitimate issue to protest and agitate about, but people being charged unfairly high rents and being cruelly evicted from their homes in 2018 is not a legitimate issue to protest and agitate about? The people of the 1800s are more deserving of housing than the people of 2018? What's the distinction? The situation is the same except for the date, FFS.

Yeah you're definitely deliberately misinterpreting me to be provocative. You couldnt be stupid enough to be genuine. You talk a lot of naively idealistic babble for sure (young and middle-class i have no doubt - i was the same meself) but you are not stupid. So I must politely ask you to stop trolling.

FFS indeed. I didn't say or even imply that the situation today is less legitimate than the one in the 1800s. Not the slightest hint like.

I said: tenants being evicted in the 1800s. Illegal occupiers who broke into someone else's private property being removed. Not. The. Same. Thing. Therefore a meme depicting them as comparable is a load of sh1t. It is a blatant false equivalence.

Now if the meme had compared the land league era eviction with a similar type of brutal eviction caught on camera today, THEN it would be more apt. Although despite Paul Murphy and all his horrible cronies' pretence, there wouldn't be any eviction of such brutality today.

There is a serious accommodation crisis though - people who say there isn't, are talking out their holes, and while i despise the far left, the freeloaders etc who pretend they are the vulnerable (hilarious), decent hard-working people who are paying their way through life and not feeling entitled to anything are being affected by the accommodation crisis. It has reached appalling levels.

I don't agree with the method of protest though, which is just being self entitled dicks, in a nutshell. But I have absolutely no issue with protesting. A massive rally at the Dail on a Saturday would be a decent approach - then the majority of people will be able to attend because of not having to go to that thing called "work". AND it won't impede people trying to get home from an eight-hours+ day to enjoy their small bit of free/family time in the evenings. Or maybe they are doing a night course or are part of a local sports team - not that the professional doleys would give a ****. Shur they're just "the bourgeoisie" (worse than Hitler according to some). AND it wouldn't be breaking the law.

BBFAN

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

100,000 houses is 25 billion euro.

Since when did we need 100,000 houses to house 10,000 people?

Ha Long Bay

BBFAN wrote: »

Since when did we need 100,000 houses to house 10,000 people?

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1102/917007-social-housing/

"The number of people on social housing waiting lists has increased by 9% to almost 100,000 households in the last year, according to figures obtained by Sinn Féin TD Harry Potter.

Mr Ó Broin has obtained figures from every local authority in the country using the Freedom of Information Act, which show a total of 99,555 households were on housing lists in September 2017."

jam_mac_jam

Also, when people are saying that we do not have the cash to build social housing they are not factoring in the huge amounts of money that is being spent on rent allowance.  Would this not be hugely reduced if people were in social housing. This also has the benefit of moving people out of the private sector and providing more supply for private renters as well as those paying through rent allowance.

I hear someone is in hospital after they were evicted. Any source on this?

Were people pepper sprayed?

Sweet.Science

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Also, when people are saying that we do not have the cash to build social housing they are not factoring in the huge amounts of money that is being spent on rent allowance.  Would this not be hugely reduced if people were in social housing. This also has the benefit of moving people out of the private sector and providing more supply for private renters as well as those paying through rent allowance.

I think you are wrong here . HAP will still be happening while these houses are being built . It would bankrupt the country .

The teachers will be out striking in a couple of months again also .

Its pie in the sky stuff thinking all these houses can be built.

Infini

In all seriousness the amount of bullshít from these "protestors" is getting to level's where the ordinary person is basically fed up with it and is seeing through it.

The guards wearing balaclavas? Why shouldn't they, thanks to the stupid feckers on cancer media who think that by identifying them and then harassing them and their families is free game when they're just doing their jobs its one way of avoiding these scrotes. I honestly can't blame them on this, they have their ID number's on their uniform if you want to complain so if its a credible complaint go ahead and lodge one. Just don't expect a favourable responce when they're just doing their job.

Occupying a building to highlight a grievance? Sure fair enough but if the owner gets a court order to vacate the said premises, don't ignore it because you feel like it, have some bloody tact and move, breaking laws doesn't win you support it just costs you credibility and shows you as pathetic wasters.

Blocking up a main street for a flash protest and moaning right to free speach? You have the right to free speech but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like? Have a grievance or see something wrong? Sure build support and have organised protests, but noone is gonna care or be willing to support you if your disrupting their live's on a whim, that pisses people off and COSTS you support. ORGANISED protests done in advance and highlighting the issue helps build support, blocking people who are bollox tired from working or just trying to get home does the opposite.

As it stand's the whole "housing crisis" is a result of bad planning, infrastructure and legacy issues from the recession. We do need more properties that are more affordable and we also need more planned towns outside of Dublin with viable road AND rail link's into Dublin. What we don't need are nonconstructive toxic gobshítes like these fools who think they're entitled to a "forever home" and think they can harass gardai in their private live's for doing their job because they feel like it.

Wheeliebin30

BBFAN wrote: »

Since when did we need 100,000 houses to house 10,000 people?

Yeah because you wont have another 10,000 the next morning looking for one.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That's not what has happened in these cases, it's not what would be planned to happen and you damn well know it. This is nothing to do with wanting to take lived in houses off people.

+1. The number of times this particularly ridiculous strawman has been raised in this thread is quite noticeable.

aido79

Sheep breeder wrote: »

because they have right to be on here with the 21000 posts and complain about opposite to what most people post,

They'll be along shortly to thank you.

weldoninhio

Deleted User wrote: »

I hear someone is in hospital after they were evicted. Any source on this?

Were people pepper sprayed?

He got a splinter and thankfully discharged. we think he's gonna make it. :rolleyes:

zapitastas

zapitastas wrote: »

Now it turns out that the tax for the van ran out in July 2014 and didn't have a mot either. The thing should have been impounded

Link?

jam_mac_jam

Sweet.Science wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Also, when people are saying that we do not have the cash to build social housing they are not factoring in the huge amounts of money that is being spent on rent allowance.  Would this not be hugely reduced if people were in social housing. This also has the benefit of moving people out of the private sector and providing more supply for private renters as well as those paying through rent allowance.

I think you are wrong here . HAP will still be happening while these houses are being built . It would bankrupt the country .

The teachers will be out striking in a couple of months again also .

Its pie in the sky stuff thinking all these houses can be built.

Very true that we would be paying Hap in the meantime, however in the longterm it would have to be cheaper, especially now when rents are so high.

Sweet.Science

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Very true that we would be paying Hap in the meantime, however in the longterm it would have to be cheaper, especially now when rents are so high.

Yes if that was to end the crisis but it wont, it would just bankrupt us and then you would have next flow of thousands of people looking for these homes like the generation before them got .

Our population will be older again . Less people working not able to sustain our debt repayments , or our welfare, or our pensions, or our public workforce our or health system etc

People actually think the government are just choosing to do nothing . Its a lot more complicated and next to impossible not to have a homeless problem . Look at other countries, they are roughly the same.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

He got a splinter and thankfully discharged. we think he's gonna make it. :rolleyes:

Source?

jam_mac_jam

Sweet.Science wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Very true that we would be paying Hap in the meantime, however in the longterm it would have to be cheaper, especially now when rents are so high.

Yes if that was to end the crisis but it wont, it would just bankrupt us and then you would have next flow of thousands of people looking for these homes like the generation before them got .

Our population will be older again .  Less people working not able to sustain our debt repayments , or our welfare, or our pensions, or our public workforce our or health system etc

People actually think the government are just choosing to do nothing . Its a lot more complicated and next to impossible not to have a homeless problem . Look at other countries, they are roughly the same.

I am not suggesting that we aim to not have a  homeless problem. A lot of homeless people are homeless because of other reasons then money or lack of social housing. My point is that nobody is factoring in the reduction in huge rent payments if you have long term housing.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Source?

This looks like it


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/britishregistered-van-used-by-heavies-in-dublin-eviction-previously-used-by-greater-manchester-police-37308796.html

Tombo2001

I have to laugh at this lot.

Was getting keys cut on Nth Frederick Street two weeks ago just as a big occupation 'event' kicked off.

Now it was entertaining enough, and i would say largely non-aggressive, and they actually had some decent singers.

However.......I did note the fact that a significant number of these punters were wearing baseball hats and had bandanas around their faces. In other words they were masked.

But now suddenly they are 'outraged' because a few security guards did likewise?

The only thing that would genuinely outrage this crew if the guards ignored them and the media ignored them, and they got zero attention.

DEFTLEFTHAND

We need to get these people into steady employment.

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

We need to get these people into steady employment.

Did you know that not everyone works 9-5?

seems as though a lot of people on here would have a major bone to pick with the Garda Commissioner, who has said that wearing balaclavas in this instance was 'not correct'.

https://www.newstalk.com/Garda-Commissioner-admits-use-of-balaclavas-at-Dublin-housing-protest-was-not-correct

...the form of dress used at the event was not correct as it is policy that if it deemed necessary to use the hood then it should be used in tandem with a protective helmet. A directive has issued today from Deputy Commissioner, Policing & Security, to re-enforce this requirement to all personnel."

He said he has ordered a report to find out 'what lessons can be learnt' from the incident.

Odhinn

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I have to laugh at this lot.

Was getting keys cut on Nth Frederick Street two weeks ago just as a big occupation 'event' kicked off.

Now it was entertaining enough, and i would say largely non-aggressive, and they actually had some decent singers.

However.......I did note the fact that a significant number of these punters were wearing baseball hats and had bandanas around their faces. In other words they were masked.

But now suddenly they are 'outraged' because a few security guards did likewise?

The only thing that would genuinely outrage this crew if the guards ignored them and the media ignored them, and they got zero attention.

No, a lot of us are wondering why a cordon of baton wielding guards in balaclavas acted as "security" for a masked crew of heavies who evicted the protestors.

blackwhite

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

seems as though a lot of people on here would have a major bone to pick with the Garda Commissioner, who has said that wearing balaclavas in this instance was 'not correct'.

https://www.newstalk.com/Garda-Commissioner-admits-use-of-balaclavas-at-Dublin-housing-protest-was-not-correct

So their policy is that the balaclava should be worn with a helmet - but he has no issue with them concealing their faces if appropriate?

He also stated that it's a matter for the senior team member on the ground to assess and decide on.

So ultimately, there's no problem with their concealing their faces at all - just so long as they wear the helmet also?

But I could have sworn the crusty whinge was about their faces not being identifiable?


Nice try at misrepresenting what Harris statement actually said though

blackwhite

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

seems as though a lot of people on here would have a major bone to pick with the Garda Commissioner, who has said that wearing balaclavas in this instance was 'not correct'.

https://www.newstalk.com/Garda-Commissioner-admits-use-of-balaclavas-at-Dublin-housing-protest-was-not-correct

BTW - you missed this part of the statement as well

However, he also defended the behaviour of gardaí, saying: "Members of An Garda Síochána showed restraint in the face of physical and verbal abuse from a very small minority and I condemn the racist abuse suffered by an individual member of An Garda Síochána working at the event."

Looks like there were some really classy protesters at the scene alright.

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

Nice try at misrepresenting what Harris statement actually said though

Not at all, actually.

Maybe he think helmets and riot gear was needed -- he doesn't go into that.

But the fact that he's asking Gardaí to go back and ask themselves 'what do you think can be learned from all of this?' would imply (maybe it's just me and my crusty ways...) that even he thinks they didn't behave proportionately here.

I'm sure you disagree, and feel that full riot gear was needed. plenty of people on this thread have voiced their support for nothing less than blood on the pavements.

ohnonotgmail

Odhinn wrote: »

No, a lot of us are wondering why a cordon of baton wielding guards in balaclavas acted as "security" for a masked crew of heavies who evicted the protestors.

They were there to maintain public order. It seems they were quite successful.

BarryD2

Dravokivich wrote: »

Single earner supporting a kid on less than the average wage.

Sweet.Science wrote: »

That system would be taken advantage of like HAP is now . No couple would get married then .

The mother can get an affordable home and the father can move in .

Who says a single earner is necessarily a single parent? The definition above could well be a married or co-habitating couple with one main income. Like it used to be.

Not sure about less than average wage though, even in times past people on lower wages would have struggled to buy a house.

Couple and child(ren) on average wage might be a better definition.

Odhinn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They were there to maintain public order. It seems they were quite successful.

In balaclavas, for a bunch in a dubiously registerd van in balaclavas......If I wanted to live in Russia I'd move, tbh.

JohnnyFlash

Odhinn wrote: »

In balaclavas, for a bunch in a dubiously registerd van in balaclavas......If I wanted to live in Russia I'd move, tbh.

Ridiculous exaggeration.

McMurphy

From the whistle blowers being stitched up, including the TUSLA files being compiled on one of them, to the overkill way an opposition TD was arrested, then a collective number of police officers lied in court to try and secure a conviction on the same opposition TD - resulting in the judge instructing that some of their evidence should be disregarded (as video evidence directly contradicted their evidence) and also the Taoiseach having to voice his concerns about how the public need to be able to trust evidence provided by the guards....

Now we have our police force acting as security guards who have been deployed to protect balaclava wearing goons....

There is no denying that policing in this country looks like it's taking a rather sinister turn.

ohnonotgmail

Odhinn wrote: »

In balaclavas, for a bunch in a dubiously registerd van in balaclavas......If I wanted to live in Russia I'd move, tbh.

you mean the men there to execute a court order? those guys? You would prefer they were not there?

Dravokivich

BarryD2 wrote: »

Who says a single earner is necessarily a single parent? The definition above could well be a married or co-habitating couple with one main income. Like it used to be.

Not sure about less than average wage though, even in times past people on lower wages would have struggled to buy a house.

Couple and child(ren) on average wage might be a better definition.

My parents were able to get into a scheme, with a single earner, less then average wage, to buy a house, where the repayment was set to 20% of highest salary (didn't matter if both were earning). That was only 35 years ago. But now, not a hope.

You need 2 high incomes, or 1 very high income to think about being able to get somewhere to live. Regardless of renting or buying.

Anything less then that is "social housing" and mixed in with people who sponge about on social welfare. Those are 2 very separate groupings, but with the same essential needs. The push needs to be on "who is charged with developing affordable housing" because by the looks of things, that may not be profitable. Which also begs the question... why?

yourdeadwright

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Odhinn wrote: »

In balaclavas, for a bunch in a dubiously registerd van in balaclavas......If I wanted to live in Russia I'd move, tbh.

Ridiculous exaggeration.

What ever way you look at it its embarrassing for the Garda and new commissioner, 
Obviously they knew this was going to take place as they where there to support ,So surely they knew that it would generate public interest by the amount of people involved  on the scene , the way they where dressed and the time of day , 
So how in gods name did they let a Van with English reg's and no tax be involved, Its very unprofessional of them ,

Odhinn

Odhinn wrote: »

No, a lot of us are wondering why a cordon of baton wielding guards in balaclavas acted as "security" for a masked crew of heavies who evicted the protestors.

Public order unit have batons. Obviously.
And the gardai are present at evictions to maintain public order.
They are not involved.
Unless there is a public order issue, which obviously there was.

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

From the whistle blowers being stitched up, including the TUSLA files being compiled on one of them, to the overkill way an opposition TD was arrested, then a collective number of police officers lied in court to try and secure a conviction on the same opposition TD - resulting in the judge instructing that some of their evidence should be disregarded (as video evidence directly contradicted their evidence) and also the Taoiseach having to voice his concerns about how the public need to be able to trust evidence provided by the guards....

Now we have our police force acting as security guards who have been deployed to protect balaclava wearing goons....

There is no denying that policing in this country looks like it's taking a rather sinister turn.

I think you need to get your facts straight

yourdeadwright

yourdeadwright wrote: »

What ever way you look at it its embarrassing for the Garda and new commissioner, 
Obviously they knew this was going to take place as they where there to support ,So surely they knew that it would generate public interest by the amount of people involved  on the scene , the way they where dressed and the time of day , 
So how in gods name did they let a Van with English reg's and no tax be involved, Its very unprofessional of them ,

What is the law in this country that covers foreign registered vehicles being used here?
Do you know?

Tombo2001

Odhinn wrote: »

In balaclavas, for a bunch in a dubiously registerd van in balaclavas......If I wanted to live in Russia I'd move, tbh.

Just curious to know your view on this.

As mentioned in an earlier post, I watched the protesters in action for about half an hour recently, while waiting at Central Key.

They were directly across the street, there was much singing, loud speakers, chanting; thats fine.

I noted that many of the protesters had their faces covered, particularly those in the building.

As such, my reaction when I saw the 'outrage' over the balacalava issue was, wow what an incredible double standard.

Am I missing something here - is there any way in which you think it isnt a double standard?

McMurphy

yourdeadwright wrote: »

What ever way you look at it its embarrassing for the Garda and new commissioner, 
Obviously they knew this was going to take place as they where there to support ,So surely they knew that it would generate public interest by the amount of people involved  on the scene , the way they where dressed and the time of day , 
So how in gods name did they let a Van with English reg's and no tax be involved, Its very unprofessional of them ,

What this guy said.

Whatever about the lads illegal occupation of the premises, how no one had the gumption or foresight to see the optics here were very bad is worrying.

More details and revelations as to who the masked men were hired by will emerge soon, these things always do.

McMurphy

bubblypop wrote: »

I think you need to get your facts straight

Can you be a bit more specific?

blackwhite

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Not at all, actually.

Maybe he think helmets and riot gear was needed -- he doesn't go into that.

But the fact that he's asking Gardaí to go back and ask themselves 'what do you think can be learned from all of this?' would imply (maybe it's just me and my crusty ways...) that even he thinks they didn't behave proportionately here.

I'm sure you disagree, and feel that full riot gear was needed. plenty of people on this thread have voiced their support for nothing less than blood on the pavements.

Funny how you love to build strawmen and put words in other people's mouths. How about responding to what's been said instead of telling people what their opinions are :rolleyes:


I think the POU had more than reasonable justification to want to cover their faces, given the level of intimidation campaigns that we've seen from various groups that share members with those organising the "reclaim the city" protests.
If their uniform requirements mean that they should also wear helmets if they wish to wear a balaclava, then that's what they should have done.

Trying to extrapolate that into some blood-lust fetish says a hell of a lot more about you than anything else. But I guess it's easier for you to make stuff up to argue against than to address the fact you keep defending scumbags who assaulted and racially abuse Gardaí.

yourdeadwright

bubblypop wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

What ever way you look at it its embarrassing for the Garda and new commissioner, 
Obviously they knew this was going to take place as they where there to support ,So surely they knew that it would generate public interest by the amount of people involved  on the scene , the way they where dressed and the time of day , 
So how in gods name did they let a Van with English reg's and no tax be involved, Its very unprofessional of them ,

What is the law in this country that covers foreign registered vehicles being used here?  
Do you know?

Well to allow an non Taxed one be involved when the Garda there with all the speculation about the new commissioner is very unprofessional , Many many Irish citizen have had cars impounded for such an offence,