The Frederick St protest and reaction

end of the road

DwightSchrute1 wrote: »

Why should you, an anonymous poster on a Internet forum be entitled to know the identities of people who are involved in something that has nothing to do with you?

because these people were involved in an act of law enforcement, a large step up from the usual jobs private security are involved in.
the gardai are expected to be identifiable via wearing a badge, private security working on a door or elsewhere are obligated to be identifiable. therefore these people should be no different. we don't need to know their names and addresses, but the company and their badge number, the people at that protest are absolutely entitled to know. just because it had nothing to do with me personally doesn't change any of this.

DwightSchrute1 wrote: »

So you think every citizen of this country have a right to know the identities of those men? That would set a very dangerous precedent if that was the case.

the identity of what these men are exactly, the company who employs them, and what legal standing they actually have, then if private security or some sort of private bailiff, then absolutely. that wouldn't set any dangerous precedent. if people use such information to get the exact identity of these men (name and address) and use that to target them, there are remedies in law to deal with that and they should and will be used.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

absolutely. a state agency should be doing that job. they would be highly regulated and people would know what these people do and who exactly they work for and what their powers are and their legal standing.
with this lot that were at this (and probably other evictions) we know nothing of who they are, their actual legal standing, whether they are even private security in the first place.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

were the people in the van irish citizens? if not then your point is irrelevant.

we don't know because unlike the gardai, they were completely unidentifiable.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I repeated the claim in the article, nothing more. If you have an issue with the claim i'm not really the person to validate it.

i'm pretty sure that if I repeated the claim about Gardaí causing injury to activists, who then required hospitalisation, people would quite rightly pull me up on that claim.

I haven't made such a claim, because i'm skeptical towards it. Frankly, I'm also skeptical about the claims of racial abuse. I would have thought most people with an ounce of common sense would be exercising skepticism towards the claims made on both sides of this encounter.

homerjay2005

end of the road wrote: »

we don't know because unlike the gardai, they were completely unidentifiable.

and that is the way it should be. there is no need for individual people, carrying out law enforcement duties, to have their names and photos plastered all over social media.

ohnonotgmail

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

i'm pretty sure that if I repeated the claim about Gardaí causing injury to activists, who then required hospitalisation, people would quite rightly pull me up on that claim.

I haven't made such a claim, because i'm skeptical towards it. Frankly, I'm also skeptical about the claims of racial abuse. I would have thought most people with an ounce of common sense would be exercising skepticism towards the claims made on both sides of this encounter.

good of you to cut off half of my post.

oholly121

Dont speak ill of the Bill

Yer Da sells Avon

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well no. that is not what i think. I think they were correct to wear balaclavas and if regulations say they need to wear helmets with them then they should have worn helmets.

It's not just the regulations; basic common sense dictates that if there is a need to protect your face from fire, then there is an even greater need to protect your eyes. Do you think they were correct to wear balaclavas because of the risk of being burned, or for some other unofficial reason?

ohnonotgmail

I get emails from uplift.ie because i have supported a couple of their campaigns. They've just sent me one on the topic at hand. it starts off with

This week, we saw Gardaí in balaclavas allow violent men assault peaceful protesters. [1] While these images were shocking, it’s nothing new. After decades of corruption, abuse and cover-ups, this week’s events are almost expected.

The [1] footnote leads to two articles in the irish times. Neither article mentions the gardai allowing the men in balaclavas to assault peaceful protestors. It is the last time uplift.ie get any support from me.

end of the road

facehugger99 wrote: »

If these Frederick Crusties went out, got jobs and paid a bit of tax into the public coffers rather than wasting State resources with their bullsh;ttery, we'd have a better chance of solving the so called 'housing crisis'.

Bunch of wasters the lot of them.

do you know they don't have jobs? i certainly don't, because being able to protest isn't proof of whether one does or doesn't have a job.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

These types are very active on social media. Of course the guards had to protect their identity.

Would anyone here want to have their families targeted by this mob?

they are supposed to wear a helmet with their hood. they didn't, so therefore had no reason to be covering up. if they had a reason, they would have worn the helmet.

ohnonotgmail

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

It's not just the regulations; basic common sense dictates that if there is a need to protect your face from fire, then there is an even greater need to protect your eyes. Do you think they were correct to wear balaclavas because of the risk of being burned, or for some other unofficial reason?

the balaclavas were not to protect their faces from fire. this has already been clarified for you.

BarryD2

Dravokivich wrote: »

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?

Sounds like your parents were availing of some sort of LA scheme? That was part of the 'social housing' provision of the day.

Regardless I agree that we need to move back to a situation where a single regular income should suffice to get a long term mortgage loan to buy family accommodation. But that single income has long been average and above, I think. Of course, if people were prepared to put their own backs into building/ renovating their own houses - smaller incomes are quite manageable.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

because these people were involved in an act of law enforcement, a large step up from the usual jobs private security are involved in.
the gardai are expected to be identifiable via wearing a badge, private security working on a door or elsewhere are obligated to be identifiable. therefore these people should be no different. we don't need to know their names and addresses, but the company and their badge number, the people at that protest are absolutely entitled to know. just because it had nothing to do with me personally doesn't change any of this.



the identity of what these men are exactly, the company who employs them, and what legal standing they actually have, then if private security or some sort of private bailiff, then absolutely. that wouldn't set any dangerous precedent. if people use such information to get the exact identity of these men (name and address) and use that to target them, there are remedies in law to deal with that and they should and will be used.

except they weren't private security so the people at the protest aren't entitled to anything.
Those remedies aren't much comfort to the families of guards when names and addresses are already on social media, prevention is better than remedy;)

Yer Da sells Avon

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the balaclavas were not to protect their faces from fire. this has already been clarified for you.

That's what they're officially used for. Are you suggesting that they were being used for some other non-standard purpose?

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

do you know they don't have jobs? i certainly don't, because being able to protest isn't proof of whether one does or doesn't have a job.




they are supposed to wear a helmet with their hood. they didn't, so therefore had no reason to be covering up. if they had a reason, they would have worn the helmet.

they did have a reason, to stop their pictures being posted on social media, you do understand the difference between a helmet and a balaclava

ohnonotgmail

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

That's what they're officially used for. Are you suggesting that they were being used for some other non-standard purpose?

perhaps you should do more reading and less writing. this has already been clarified.

Yer Da sells Avon

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

perhaps you should do more reading and less writing. this has already been clarified.

I'm asking you to clarify it again. Why won't you do that? It's a simple question.

ohnonotgmail

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

I'm asking you to clarify it again. Why won't you do that? It's a simple question.

what point are you trying to make? I've already told you the answer.

yourdeadwright

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

That's what they're officially used for. Are you suggesting that they were being used for some other non-standard purpose?

perhaps you should do more reading and less writing.  this has already been clarified.

Lets not play silly buggers ,They where used to hide there identity nothing else, regardless of what the official line is, Surely in this country we are past believing everything the Garda tell us, 
Fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me,

Yer Da sells Avon

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what point are you trying to make? I've already told you the answer.

I'm being nice and giving you an opportunity to come up with a less spurious reason than 'protecting their identity', which would be a total misuse of balaclavas and very much against The Rules.

ohnonotgmail

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Lets not play silly buggers ,They where used to hide there identity nothing else, regardless of what the official line is, Surely in this country we are past believing everything the Garda tell us,
Fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me,

I have already said this. you and your mate avon seem to have not read my posts before replying.

end of the road

homerjay2005 wrote: »

and that is the way it should be. there is no need for individual people, carrying out law enforcement duties, to have their names and photos plastered all over social media.

it's absolutely not the way it should be. if gardai are expected to cary identification in the form of a badge, private security are expected to have a form of identification, then these private individuals who are working in a law enforcement capacity, should be identifiable. civil law or criminal law are both law, and those enforcing it whether state or private should have identification as to what their exact job description is, and which company they work for. there is absolutely no way, that there should be masked unidentifiable individuals carying out evictions, who nobody has any idea of what they are or who exactly employs them. if one of those men for example, asalted someone, then how the hell would a prosecution be brought? if it turns out the gards didn't actually know who these men were, which is a possibility that couldn't be ruled out, then essentially we have a situation where the right to fair justice has been circumvented.

uptherebels

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

I'm being nice and giving you an opportunity to come up with a less spurious reason than 'protecting their identity', which would be a total misuse of balaclavas and very much against The Rules.

you have a source for these "rules"

ohnonotgmail

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

I'm being nice and giving you an opportunity to come up with a less spurious reason than 'protecting their identity', which would be a total misuse of balaclavas and very much against The Rules.

I'd rather take the slap on the wrist for wearing it than have my face plastered over the internet by nutters.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

it's absolutely not the way it should be. if gardai are expected to cary identification in the form of a badge, private security are expected to have a form of identification, then these private individuals who are working in a law enforcement capacity, should be identifiable. civil law or criminal law are both law, and those enforcing it whether state or private should have identification as to what their exact job description is, and which company they work for. there is absolutely no way, that there should be masked unidentifiable individuals carying out evictions, who nobody has any idea of what they are or who exactly employs them. if one of those men for example, asalted someone, then how the hell would a prosecution be brought? if it turns out the gards didn't actually know who these men were, which is a possibility that couldn't be ruled out, then essentially we have a situation where the right to fair justice has been circumvented.

you understand it wasn't an eviction, loose on the facts as usual

Yer Da sells Avon

uptherebels wrote: »

you have a source for these "rules"

Only the Garda Commissioner, Mr Drew Harris OBE:

"The use of a fire retardant hood by public order officers is a matter for the operational commander on the ground and is designed to protect the safety of our members based on a risk assessment. However, the form of dress used at the event was not correct."

"it is policy that if it [is] deemed necessary to use the hood then it should be used in tandem with a protective helmet"

ohnonotgmail wrote:

I'd rather take the slap on the wrist for wearing it than have my face plastered over the internet by nutters.

Nice to see The Rules only matter sometimes then.

Given the unpredictable nature of their day-to-day job, their insistence on covering their faces specifically for a protest seems odd. It's a wonder they don't clock off every day and go straight onto a witness protection programme, tbh.

Ha Long Bay

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Obviously the person who asked the question cares, 
So in you own word, Your comment has nothing to do with the conversation and adding nothing constructive to it,

I just find it strange on how much focus there is by a few people on how the Guards should be revenue collectors for HM Customs but completely ignore the fact people decided to break into someone elses property and refuse to leave.

RabbleRouser2k

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Watched this on the tv, very disappointed with Matt cooper trying to be a Rockefella all the time and the Renua guy was as wooden and thick looking and Matt making him look like a fool. He will make a great TD for the back benches at the next election.
This country is going mad slowly and is fu,,,d with the working person being wrong at every turn for believing in wanting to have a house,a family, and a bit of a life. The new way seems to screw every one who works hard and they have no right to question the media, the head bangers, and the do gooders.
The people are wrong for agreeing the law was right to evict these persons out of this property that a person OWNED, the people are wrong for not agreeing Margaret Euro and her jail bird husband and entitled to a free life style and live it up, the abortion ref the people that voted yes were wrong to have a say in what effects the peoples right to choose. The whole thing is about keeping the media, TD in a job,the merry go round working and money.

Was in the back of a taxi the other day (needed to get from A to B and I don't have a license) and the driver said to me she believes we're getting close to another recession. Like, razor's edge kinda deal. Property prices are skyrocketing, people can't start families because of not having enough money to own pay the bills or own their own homes. Growth and prosperity are all centralized to certain areas, yet other counties still lag behind and haven't recovered in the ten years since the last recession. Even renting is getting ridiculous.

There are warning signals, and the elitist idiots running the place are doing absolutely nothing.

There were also those in the media who were like 'men shouldn't be allowed vote on the abortion referendum' That's not how democracy works. If Ireland had a referendum banning circumcision, imagine how you'd react if folks said 'this is a vote for men, by men-not women should be allowed vote'?

Bethany Long Pensioner

Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »

the scum they're championing

Hmmm, so as the shortage of houses continues and rents rise to ever more ridiculous and unaffordable levels the group of people you classify as ‘scum’ will grow in tandem as well?

Captain Obvious

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Only the Garda Commissioner, Mr Drew Harris OBE:

"The use of a fire retardant hood by public order officers is a matter for the operational commander on the ground and is designed to protect the safety of our members based on a risk assessment. However, the form of dress used at the event was not correct."

"it is policy that if it [is] deemed necessary to use the hood then it should be used in tandem with a protective helmet"



Nice to see The Rules only matter sometimes then.

Given the unpredictable nature of their day-to-day job, their insistence on covering their faces specifically for a protest seems odd. It's a wonder they don't clock off every day and go straight onto a witness protection programme, tbh.

The scene commander has the say and they base their directions on their assessment of the scene. The policies are for Gardaí to follow but can be overruled by officers. If the Commissioner wants to direct that helmets should always be worn that's his prerogative. It just means next time they will be wearing the face covers and helmets. Not sure how that will be a victory for protestors.



It's a shame you decided to minimise the issue of threats to Gardaí. Some members do have to take measures to protect themselves. Measures from installing blast proof windows to moving house completely. Considering there is already personal details of some of the Gardaí being circulated online and one of the people arrested was carrying a knife, I can only assume you aren't really that genuine in your assessment of the dangers they face.

blackwhite

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

"if it [is] deemed necessary to use the hood then it should be used in tandem with a protective helmet."

If procedure dictates the wearing of a balaclava only under a helmet (which makes sense because without the helmet, which has a visor that covers the eyes, the fire-protective balaclava is largely useless), were your heroes not breaking the rules?

Quick, quick, - shift the goalposts when your lies are pointed out. Pathetic.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

except they weren't private security so the people at the protest aren't entitled to anything.

except we don't know that because they had no identification what so ever. we do know the gardai were there, they had their badges as (i believe) are legally mandated.
so who were the masked men. private security have attended and been involved in evictions before, so i think it's reasonable to think that these masked men were quite likely private security. they were driving an english registered van, so i think it's reasonable to assume that they may have been from outside the state (northern ireland)
the protesters are absolutely entitled to know what exact legal capacity these men were operating in, and if actual private security or private bailiffs, which company they were working for.

uptherebels wrote: »

they did have a reason, to stop their pictures being posted on social media, you do understand the difference between a helmet and a balaclava

a link with comments either from the commissioner or deputy commissioner was posted here a bit back. protecting their identity isn't a reason for wearing a balaclava, and they are supposed to wear a helmet on top of the balaclava if there is an actual need to wear it. so, their wearing of the balaclava at this eviction was not legitimate.

uptherebels wrote: »

you understand it wasn't an eviction, loose on the facts as usual

what was it then, a pub crawl? of course it was an eviction/removal/whatever. they were being removed/evicted from the property they were in (in their case illegally)

Homer

Rent a Gardai Mob wrote: »

How much to rent a Gardai mob?Or do I have to be a well connected elitist?

Yawn... Didn't you get your forever home yet :rolleyes:

Alrigghtythen

We should all be given forever homes for free.

gctest50

Rent a Gardai Mob wrote: »

How much to rent a Gardai mob?Or do I have to be a well connected elitist?

There was a court order telling them to gtf out of the building

Where were all the protesters when that court was on ?

Why didn't the protesters hire lawyers and whatnot to put their "case" forward ?

Couldn't get time off work maybe ? lol

blackwhite

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

That's what they're officially used for. Are you suggesting that they were being used for some other non-standard purpose?

Got a link to back that up?


Because anything that's been quoted so far states that the decision of what personal protection equipment to use is at the discretion of the commanding officer on the scene.


Is this yet another example of you making stuff up? (I sense another goalpost shift coming up - probably with some name-calling or abuse thrown in for good measure as well)

blackwhite

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

I'm being nice and giving you an opportunity to come up with a less spurious reason than 'protecting their identity', which would be a total misuse of balaclavas and very much against The Rules.

I've never seen someone so upset that they were denied the opportunity to track down and harass Gardai and their families.

With attitudes like this it's not hard to see how the "protest" decended into attaching the gardaí and racial abuse

gctest50

Rent a Gardai Mob wrote: »

So peaceful protesters are move of a danger to Gardai than the kinahan cartel?

The guards have shown to be violent towards peaceful protester's (look at the heavy set garda with RA hat strike with his baton) they can lie and break all laws with impunity.

http://www.thejournal.ie/activists-housing-frederick-street-north-dublin-4208153-Aug2018/

HOUSING ACTIVISTS HAVE vowed not to leave a house on Frederick Street North in Dublin city after being told to vacate by the High Court.

There's photos knocking around of a protester with a rifle from a previous protest

blackwhite

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Only the Garda Commissioner, Mr Drew Harris OBE:

"The use of a fire retardant hood by public order officers is a matter for the operational commander on the ground and is designed to protect the safety of our members based on a risk assessment. However, the form of dress used at the event was not correct."

"it is policy that if it [is] deemed necessary to use the hood then it should be used in tandem with a protective helmet"



Nice to see The Rules only matter sometimes then.

Given the unpredictable nature of their day-to-day job, their insistence on covering their faces specifically for a protest seems odd. It's a wonder they don't clock off every day and go straight onto a witness protection programme, tbh.

So where does it say they must only be used for fire-protection?

The quote clearly states that the hoods can be used at the discretion of the commander on the ground based on his/her risk assessment. Nothing there to limit what the different risks might be. Where they failed to follow procedure was only in not also using the helmets.

Given the history of our "protester" class (and proven the subsequent attempts on social media over the past 2 days to identify the gardai involved), it's a fairly reasonable assessment to see a risk of harassment by the sort of scum who assaulted and racially abused the gardai on Tuesday evening.

Yer Da sells Avon

Captain Obvious wrote:

The scene commander has the say and they base their directions on their assessment of the scene. The policies are for Gardaí to follow but can be overruled by officers. If the Commissioner wants to direct that helmets should always be worn that's his prerogative. It just means next time they will be wearing the face covers and helmets. Not sure how that will be a victory for protestors.

I suspect their faces won't be covered at all, tbh, considering there was no real reason for it this time.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's a shame you decided to minimise the issue of threats to Gardaí. Some members do have to take measures to protect themselves. Measures from installing blast proof windows to moving house completely. Considering there is already personal details of some of the Gardaí being circulated online and one of the people arrested was carrying a knife, I can only assume you aren't really that genuine in your assessment of the dangers they face.

I thought it was quite obvious, Captain... Obvious, that far from minimising the issue of threats to Gardai, I'm suggesting that they face far bigger threats than housing protests on a daily basis, when they deal with actual criminals, and somehow manage not to cover their faces.

Yer Da sells Avon

blackwhite wrote: »

So where does it say they must only be used for fire-protection?

The quote clearly states that the hoods can be used at the discretion of the commander on the ground based on his/her risk assessment. Nothing there to limit what the different risks might be. Where they failed to follow procedure was only in not also using the helmets.

Given the history of our "protester" class (and proven the subsequent attempts on social media over the past 2 days to identify the gardai involved), it's a fairly reasonable assessment to see a risk of harassment by the sort of scum who assaulted and racially abused the gardai on Tuesday evening.

Commissioner Harris OBE literally describes them as 'fire retardant hoods' in his statement, and then goes on to say that they should be worn with helmets (which are equipped with visors). Why should they be worn with helmets? Because there's no point in protecting your face from fire if your eyes are still going to be exposed. They serve a purpose. People here seem to be suggesting that they should be re-purposed.

blackwhite

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Commissioner Harris OBE literally describes them as 'fire retardant hoods' in his statement, and then goes on to say that they should be worn with helmets (which are equipped with visors). Why should they be worn with helmets? Because there's no point in protecting your face from fire if your eyes are still going to be exposed. They serve a purpose. People here seem to be suggesting that they should be re-purposed.

I have a training top for football that’s described as a “windbreaker” on the O’Neills website.

It also happens to give good protection in light rain. Am I breaking “The Rules” if I wear it to keep me dry instead of storing it away and waiting for a windy day?

When I play golf I often use my “sand wedge” to play from the fairway - should I be disqualified for that?

If you are incapable of destinguishing between the description of a garment/equipment and the different uses for that garment/equipment then I’d suggest that’s your problem, not everyone else’, and I certainly wouldn’t be making stupid posts defending racists that highlight that ignorance

weldoninhio

blackwhite wrote: »

I have a training top for football that’s described as a “windbreaker” on the O’Neills website.

It also happens to give good protection in light rain. Am I breaking “The Rules” if I wear it to keep me dry instead of storing it away and waiting for a windy day?

When I play golf I often use my “sand wedge” to play from the fairway - should I be disqualified for that?

If you are incapable of destinguishing between the description of a garment/equipment and the different uses for that garment/equipment then I’d suggest that’s your problem, not everyone else’, and I certainly wouldn’t be making stupid posts defending racists that highlight that ignorance

My mattress is fire retardant. I’m gonna have to go buy a helmet now so i don’t break “The Rules” (sic)

The Nal

If you break into someones property and refuse to leave and end up getting arrested or getting the shít kicked out of you, tough titties.

What did they expect?! They broke into someones private property.

As for the owner, according to Take Back the City themselves, the she has worked in a humanitarian capacity in Romania for years, worked for the non profit Women for Election and is now director of The Irish Environmental Conservation Organisation For Youth Unesco Clubs.

Seems like an upstanding member of society who does a lot of good right?

So lets break into her property.

These people are scum. As is anyone who thinks breaking and entering is ok.

Captain Obvious

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

I suspect their faces won't be covered at all, tbh, considering there was no real reason for it this time.

One of the protestors was armed with a knife and another assaulted a Garda. Seems plenty of reason for full gear to be worn next time.

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

I thought it was quite obvious, Captain... Obvious, that far from minimising the issue of threats to Gardai, I'm suggesting that they face far bigger threats than housing protests on a daily basis, when they deal with actual criminals, and somehow manage not to cover their faces.

You are minimising the threat posed by the people at the protests despite it being very common for Gardaí to be individually targeted in their personal lives during water protests. You minimise it with the logic that it could be worse. The difference between regular policing and policing a protest is that mob mentality makes people brave and stupider in protest groups.

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Commissioner Harris OBE literally describes them as 'fire retardant hoods' in his statement, and then goes on to say that they should be worn with helmets (which are equipped with visors). Why should they be worn with helmets? Because there's no point in protecting your face from fire if your eyes are still going to be exposed. They serve a purpose. People here seem to be suggesting that they should be re-purposed.

The helmets and visors only protect against projectiles and blunt instruments directed at the head. They do not protect against fire or corrosive materials thrown at the body. That's what the hood does. It also provides the protection against smoke and tear gas.

Yer Da sells Avon

blackwhite wrote: »

I have a training top for football that’s described as a “windbreaker” on the O’Neills website.

It also happens to give good protection in light rain. Am I breaking “The Rules” if I wear it to keep me dry instead of storing it away and waiting for a windy day?

When I play golf I often use my “sand wedge” to play from the fairway - should I be disqualified for that?

If you are incapable of destinguishing between the description of a garment/equipment and the different uses for that garment/equipment then I’d suggest that’s your problem, not everyone else’, and I certainly wouldn’t be making stupid posts defending racists that highlight that ignorance

So you think he just kind of... I dunno, casually called them 'fire retardant hoods' because that's what it says on the box they came in, rather than because it is the specific purpose that they serve when combined with the helmets that he (entirely coincidentally) said they should accompany?

I suppose we'll see if they're wearing them (along with the appropriate helmets, of course) at the next protest. I have a feeling they won't be....

weldoninhio wrote:

My mattress is fire retardant. I’m gonna have to go buy a helmet now so i don’t break “The Rules” (sic)

You mean your 'fire retardant mattress' is fire retardant, surely?

Edgware

blackwhite wrote: »

I have a training top for football that’s described as a “windbreaker” on the O’Neills website.

It also happens to give good protection in light rain. Am I breaking “The Rules” if I wear it to keep me dry instead of storing it away and waiting for a windy day?

When I play golf I often use my “sand wedge” to play from the fairway - should I be disqualified for that?

If you are incapable of destinguishing between the description of a garment/equipment and the different uses for that garment/equipment then I’d suggest that’s your problem, not everyone else’, and I certainly wouldn’t be making stupid posts defending racists that highlight that ignorance

Of course you are noted for your wind breaking ability

Samsong

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Can anyone give me a costing for these social houses?

I constantly ask this and no one can answer here.

Let’s say 250,000 each.

100,000 houses is 25 billion euro.

Do people think we have that money????[/quote

Yes.

The Nal

Captain Obvious wrote: »

One of the protestors was armed with a knife

Really?!

mfceiling

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Commissioner Harris OBE literally describes them as 'fire retardant hoods' in his statement, and then goes on to say that they should be worn with helmets (which are equipped with visors). Why should they be worn with helmets? Because there's no point in protecting your face from fire if your eyes are still going to be exposed. They serve a purpose. People here seem to be suggesting that they should be re-purposed.

Take a look at what formula 1 drivers wear underneath their helmets the next time they remove it.

Captain Obvious

The Nal wrote: »

Really?!

Yes

The Irish Independent has learned that one of those arrested, a man in his 30s from north Dublin, was found in possession of a butterfly knife.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/garda-was-subjected-to-racist-comment-as-fallout-continues-following-eviction-protest-37311262.html

Yer Da sells Avon

mfceiling wrote: »

Take a look at what formula 1 drivers wear underneath their helmets the next time they remove it.

Bet they're not allowed out without their helmets.