The Frederick St protest and reaction

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote: »

Wrong on all counts there Tyrant, I normally like your posts but you're just coming across as an arrogant asshole now.

I've experienced both alcohol and drug addiction personally and would never have made it to recovery without a home to go to. I said AFTER rehab, you obviously didn't read my post.

Also, Home First is a professional initiative. Are those professionals also speaking through their arses?

I'm not familiar with Home First, do they have a website?

Just to be clear, in case we have our wires crossed, of course people coming out of Rehab need to have stable accommodation. But they also have tremendous support needs.

I'm no expert, and having experienced this, you're obviously more qualified than I to talk about it, but I do have some limited experience in this area. Any housing chairty that I'm aware of organises its accommodation for those in recovery on a phased basis. That means that people in recovery (i.e. after rehab) are initially housed in a supported setting, and living alone in their own accommodation is something that is only considered much further down the line, as they become more independent.

That seems to me like a sensible approach. I'm sure you'd agree that Rehab is not a one-stop shop, where the addict is suddenly cured and can immediately go back to independent living?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

in relation to cases like this i have to disagree. anyone working in any kind of an enforcement capacity should be identifiable in some way.
i'd argue that masked unidentifiable hoodies does make a difference to the safety of protesters on the basis that should those individuals over-stepped the mark, it would likely not be possible for the victim to take a prosecution against the hooded individual or individuals because they wouldn't be able to identify them when required.

Of course a prosecution could be taken.
Injured party make complaint to gardai, Gardai investigate & they identify the offender.
How would seeing someone's face identify them anyway? Unless the injured party actually knew the offender?

Rules should be the same for everyone.

the_syco

BBFAN wrote: »

The more time you say crusties the cooler you are. :rolleyes:

Protesters protest in buildings that will matter. It seems this lot has protested in buildings that have/had been applying for planning permission to turn the places into apartments.

davo10 wrote: »

The muppets who occupied them have possibly ensured the landlord will get planning for the property and it will come to market with high cost rental units.

At least one of them, 41 Belvedere Place, has been granted Planning Permission.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What exactly is the difference between the average person on the homeless list, and the rough sleeper, except that the latter typically refuses to take an offer of accommodation?

The latter often refuse to stay sober in the council hostels (that usually have drink in them anyway). The former will be on the housing list, and often are in the process to get a house.

end of the road wrote: »

the hoodies on the other hand had no valid reason to be masked given they were there as part of a legitimate act of law enforcement. i don't care why exactly the protesters may want to know their identity

They hide their identities, so that they don't get harassed on the street.

end of the road wrote: »

it is, but hoodies with no identity being given backing by the gardai is also a main issue.

Did the gardai enter the premises where the people were being evicted from?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Curious as to how they're identifying them, seeing as they were masked?

The Gardai have numbers on them. Match the number, find the Gardai.

BBFAN wrote: »

The people on here who say property owners have every right to do what they want with their properties, I'm interested:

1. Would you be happy if every house on your block was boarded up and left empty for years?
2. Would you be happy if 30 people moved into one house next door to you?

If you wouldn't be happy with that then what would you do about it? Just put up with it because it's someone else's property so they're entitled to do whatever they want with it?

Regarding the 1st question; are you referring to ghost estates?
Regarding the 2nd question; I'd report it to the council, as it's overcrowding.

BBFAN wrote: »

The people on here who say property owners have every right to do what they want with their properties

Once it meets planning permission, they do.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

One of the dangers of being a guard I suppose, the job can be dangerous enough without putting themselves into stupid situations like the Frederick street incident

You go where you are sent. You may see more Gardai in balaclavas in the future, depending on how these Gardai get harassed.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Probably a topic for another thread but does anyone ever ask why they were boarded up in the first place?

Harder to trespass, and easier to spot if the board is missing.

BBFAN wrote: »

Also, Home First is a professional initiative. Are those professionals also speaking through their arses?

Give me a link to the website? Googling "home first" gives me https://www.firstireland.ie

Auguste Comte

Interesting article by Mick Clifford in today's Examiner.

The new Garda commissioner, Drew Harris, has at least acknowledged that how things were handled demands further inquiry. And the Policing Authority has expressed its concern through chairperson, Josephine Feehily.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

How would seeing someone's face identify them anyway? Unless the injured party actually knew the offender?

By giving a description of the person's face to Gardaí, just like when any crime is committed... "he has red hair, mid-forties", etc. How is this difficult to understand?

the_syco wrote: »

The Gardai have numbers on them. Match the number, find the Gardai.

That's not public information though. You can't just google a badge number.

BBFAN

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

I'm not familiar with Home First, do they have a website?

Apologies, it's called the Housing First initiative and it's advocated by Peter McVerry whom I think we can agree has excellent experience in dealing with the worst possible cases of homelessness.

Can't do links on my phone but a Google will get you there.

P_1

It's a very good protest idea but very very flawed in its execution in my eyes.

Ideally the properties should be occupied, when the injunction invariably rolls in then another property should be occupied and the property with the injunction on it left peacefully before the need for heavies etc.

Another option would be to start occupying the NAMA owned properties.

Box clever and public support across all the working class can be secured, then the government and the elites will really start shiiting their pants

McMurphy

bubblypop wrote: »

Of course a prosecution could be taken.
Injured party make complaint to gardai, Gardai investigate & they identify the offender.
How would seeing someone's face identify them anyway? Unless the injured party actually knew the offender?

Rules should be the same for everyone.

Is this a serious question?

You can do better than that, surely?

davo10

P_1 wrote: »

It's a very good protest idea but very very flawed in its execution in my eyes.

Ideally the properties should be occupied, when the injunction invariably rolls in then another property should be occupied and the property with the injunction on it left peacefully before the need for heavies etc.

Another option would be to start occupying the NAMA owned properties.

Box clever and public support across all the working class can be secured, then the government and the elites will really start shiiting their pants

Who are the elites? Property owners by any chance. I think you will find that a lot of working class people are also property owners and don't like the thought of grungy college kids taking over private property to get 15 mins of fame.

davo10

davo10 wrote: »

Who are the elites? Property owners by any chance. I think you will find that a lot of working class people are also property owners

If you're talking about investment property, then that is kinda totally at odds with the definition of working class, i.e. one whose income is earned by the sale of labour.

Even casting aside that definition, it's a bit odd to describe the owner of a capital investment worth hundreds of thousands of euro as 'working class'.

Wheeliebin30

Lads do you think we live in the USSR or what???

Graces7

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Lads do you think we live in the USSR or what???

Interesting question :eek:

davo10

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If you're talking about investment property, then that is kinda totally at odds with the definition of working class, i.e. one whose income is earned by the sale of labour.

Even casting aside that definition, it's a bit odd to describe the owner of a capital investment worth hundreds of thousands of euro as 'working class'.

Do you think investors are confined to high income earner? Lots of public servants, tradesmen, taxi drivers, bus drivers etc invested in properties. Go over to the accommodation thread and see the number of average income earners who are investment property owners and landlords. I wonder do working class people who own property consider themselves part of the "elite" class.

With the price of property today, lots of working class people who get paid for labour have properties worth hundreds of thousands.

weldoninhio

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

By giving a description of the person's face to Gardaí, just like when any crime is committed... "he has red hair, mid-forties", etc. How is this difficult to understand?


That's not public information though. You can't just google a badge number.

Why would you need to google a badge number?? If the Garda has done something wrong you report their badge number, that allows AGS to identify them.

McMurphy

weldoninhio wrote: »

Why would you need to google a badge number?? If the Garda has done something wrong you report their badge number, that allows AGS to identify them.

Did you follow the flow of conversation?

A poster said that some anonymous source on Facebook had started to identify some of the masked guards and publish their details, including where one ate lunch.

I asked how they identified a balaclava wearing guard, seeing as how they were masked, and another poster said via the numbers.

I don't think theirs a database that connects guards numbers to their real names available to the public, so this understandably is a bit baffling.

More so, as if true, makes the balaclavas redundant anyway, but then again we also have posters in the thread wondering why it matters if a balaclava is worn or not, as seeing someone's face isn't much use to identify them, unless you know them personally anyway (I'm not joking) which once again makes the balaclavas redundant.

Tad confusing and a bit all over the shop.

P_1

davo10 wrote: »

Do you think investors are confined to high income earner? Lots of public servants, tradesmen, taxi drivers, bus drivers etc invested in properties. Go over to the accommodation thread and see the number of average income earners who are investment property owners and landlords. I wonder do working class people who own property consider themselves part of the "elite" class.

With the price of property today, lots of working class people who get paid for labour have properties worth hundreds of thousands.

So there is a distinction between a regular sham who bought a single investment property and business owners who own multiple properties and essentially act as slum lords. The people doing the occupations presumably have the intelligence to make this distinction and by all indications appear to only be occupying properties owned by the latter

juno10353

Are sheriff's or registered bailiffs not required by law to perform legal evictions?

Why are our Gardai supporting a group of unregistered bailiffs. Is that not a case of them supporting an illegal eviction?

davo10

P_1 wrote: »

So there is a distinction between a regular sham who bought a single investment property and business owners who own multiple properties and essentially act as slum lords. The people doing the occupations presumably have the intelligence to make this distinction and by all indications appear to only be occupying properties owned by the latter

No, actually the muppets confirmed in interviews they did not know the owner of Frederick st property and to my knowledge, there has not been any accusations of them being slum landlords. Are you aware of any?

I think a characteristion of an owner being and ordinary sham or a slum landlords based solely on the number of properties owned is idiotic. Does a properly owner change from a sham to a slum landlord when the second, third, fourth etc properties are bought? Many slum landlords are working class people who have one property and can't afford to renovate properties, many investors offer fantastic properties at market price.

davo10

davo10 wrote: »

Do you think investors are confined to high income earner? Lots of public servants, tradesmen, taxi drivers, bus drivers etc invested in properties. Go over to the accommodation thread and see the number of average income earners who are investment property owners and landlords. I wonder do working class people who own property consider themselves part of the "elite" class.

I wouldn't call them elite, but whether you are sitting on a vacant property worth €500,000, or you have invested in stocks and bonds to that value, I don't really draw any distinction. Except that the latter is typically a more ethical venture.

I struggle to see the relevance of defining the class of these property owners anyway, except to paint them as 'ordinary decent Joes'. They may be ordinary, they may even be called Joe, but there's nothing decent about speculating in vacant property during a housing crisis.

Most people can't even waste food without feeling guilty about it. Don't you wonder at all how these speculators justify their behaviour to themselves? I certainly do, and if they can't bring themselves to act more responsibly, maybe we need legislation to compel them.

P_1

davo10 wrote: »

No, actually the muppets confirmed in interviews they did not know the owner of Frederick st property and to my knowledge, there has not been any accusations of them being slum landlords. Are you aware of any?

I think a characteristion of an owner being and ordinary sham or a slum landlords based solely on the number of properties owned is idiotic. Does a properly owner change from a sham to a slum landlord when the second, third, fourth etc properties are bought? Many slum landlords are working class people who have one property and can't afford to renovate properties, many investors offer fantastic properties at market price.

They change to being a slum landlord when the 4th property is converted to sleep 6 to a room, and then the 3rd and then the 2nd etc.

That's the definition of a slum landlord. A regular sham who can't afford to renovate a place is different. Generally you tend to find they treat their tenants decently

Captain Obvious

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Footage in the last 15 seconds. No visible numbers on several Gardai. Precautionary on their part. But utterly in contravention of their code of practice.

They all have numbers visible. I presume you are talking about the ones getting into the van.

Turner wrote: »

These sh1tebag "peaceful protestors" are already identifying members of this Garda Public Order unit on social media, even posting where they eat their lunch on their break from work.

What next? Protest outside the homes of the Gardai?

Protest outside where their children go to school?

The government and the new Garda commissioner need to grow a pair and protect our front line services from these parasites.

That's only what they've posted on the public forums. And this is only the start.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Curious as to how they're identifying them, seeing as they were masked?

Because they had their numbers on them.

end of the road wrote: »

it is, but hoodies with no identity being given backing by the gardai is also a main issue.

They are no more required to wear ID than the guys with their faces covered in the protest.

end of the road wrote: »

it would have insured that had the hoodies done anything they shouldn't, they would be identifiable for prosecution. i'm not bothered about the hoodies protection, because as they are there acting in an enforcement capacity, they should be identifiable.

But if the Gardaí already knew who they were they'd be identifiable anyway. a balaclava doesn't conceal your clothes or body shape.

end of the road wrote: »

it would have made a huge difference, because the helmet and balaclava together is apparently the required gear, and by wearing it we could be genuinely confident that they may have felt there was a genuine potential threat.

It wouldn't have made any difference because the crowds react negatively to the helmet too and it conceals the face even more. You're trying to make an issue out of something with no basis. Tell me, why exactly are you upset about the face coverings? Are you upset they looked scary? Are you upset the Gardaí weren't fully protected?

end of the road wrote: »

then the gardai have nothing to worry about. as there is no evidence for the allegations made against them by protesters, then the allegations would be found to be untrue.

False allegations are always something to worry about. They can prevent you receiving a promotion, a transfer or a new position. They can result in criminal investigations. They are extremely stressful and disruptive.

davo10

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I wouldn't call them elite, but whether you are sitting on a vacant property worth €500,000, or you have invested in stocks and bonds to that value, I don't really draw any distinction. Except that the latter is typically a more ethical venture.

I struggle to see the relevance of defining the class of these property owners anyway, except to paint them as 'ordinary decent Joes'. They may be ordinary, they may even be called Joe, but there's nothing decent about speculating in vacant property during a housing crisis.

Most people can't even waste food without feeling guilty about it. Don't you wonder at all how these speculators justify their behaviour to themselves? I certainly do, and if they can't bring themselves to act more responsibly, maybe we need legislation to compel them.

One of the issues I have with this type of showboating, is that they picked properties which will never be affordable to the people who need them. They are effectively protesting so that rentals will be made available to people who can afford to pay €1500 a month, not for homeless people or people on a housing list.

From a legal standpoint, whether you or the muppets like it or not, the owners of these buildings are doing nothing illegal, you may feel that immoral, but many people think that invading a privately owned house is equal if not worse, because there is a realisation that if the law is not enforced, muppets could take over your house next.

davo10

P_1 wrote: »

They change to being a slum landlord when the 4th property is converted to sleep 6 to a room, and then the 3rd and then the 2nd etc.

That's the definition of a slum landlord. A regular sham who can't afford to renovate a place is different. Generally you tend to find they treat their tenants decently

Did the owners of Frederick Street do that?

I agree, owners who do that are slum landlords and should be prosecuted. But I don't see muppets going in and occupying those buildings, why not?

Captain Obvious

davo10 wrote: »

Did the owners of Frederick Street do that?

I agree, owners who do that are slum landlords and should be prosecuted. But I don't see muppets going in and occupying those buildings, why not?

Wasn't Frederick Street a commercial property?

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Because they had their numbers on them.

How did they gain access to AGS database that connects guards numbers to their real names?

A further question would be, if normal joe soaps can identify them from their numbers (which they must display) what is the point in the balaclavas to begin with?

All I am left to assume is, that if normal Joe Soaps can identify members of AGS from the badge numbers, the balaclavas look to have been worn for no other purpose than to try and make the guards a bit more menacing/send out a certain message.

P_1

davo10 wrote: »

Did the owners of Frederick Street do that?

I agree, owners who do that are slum landlords and should be prosecuted. But I don't see muppets going in and occupying those buildings, why not?

Very good point. I know Summerhill was. Now I think of it Frederick Street was an abandoned retail premises with unoccupied flats on top

Guess this ties un with the flawed execution argument

weldoninhio

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Did you follow the flow of conversation?

A poster said that some anonymous source on Facebook had started to identify some of the masked guards and publish their details, including where one ate lunch.

I asked how they identified a balaclava wearing guard, seeing as how they were masked, and another poster said via the numbers.

I don't think theirs a database that connects guards numbers to their real names available to the public, so this understandably is a bit baffling.

More so, as if true, makes the balaclavas redundant anyway, but then again we also have posters in the thread wondering why it matters if a balaclava is worn or not, as seeing someone's face isn't much use to identify them, unless you know them personally anyway (I'm not joking) which once again makes the balaclavas redundant.

Tad confusing and a bit all over the shop.

Wires are being crossed. If someone has an issue with the Gardaí they can report them via bagde numbers.

The scum online putting out info on Gardaí are finding members of the Public order unit and exposing them as so. Not necessarily the ones that were at Frederick St.

davo10

P_1 wrote: »

Very good point. I know Summerhill was. Now I think of it Frederick Street was an abandoned retail premises with unoccupied flats on top

Guess this ties un with the flawed execution argument

The protesters need to identify their targets and know their audience. Occupying buildings which have no hope of ever being offered to the disadvantaged and where the LL has no history of abusing tenants garners no sympathy for the cause among the general populace who struggle to pay mortgages or whose family members are looking for affordable accommodation.

On the other hand, shaming slum landlords and occupying state/Nama owned properties and forcing them to be offered to the less fortunate will generate huge support.

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

How did they gain access to AGS database that connects guards numbers to their real names?

You don't need access to a database. Plenty of people know Garda numbers and the names to go with them, particularly people who have had previous interactions with them, like the person who shared the personal details and lunch habits of the Garda in question.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

A further question would be, if normal joe soaps can identify them from their numbers (which they must display) what is the point in the balaclavas to begin with?

All I am left to assume is, that if normal Joe Soaps can identify members of AGS from the badge numbers, the balaclavas look to have been worn for no other purpose than to try and make the guards a bit more menacing/send out a certain message.

Or they were being worn for their intended purpose, protection.

davo10

davo10 wrote: »

One of the issues I have with this type of showboating, is that they picked properties which will never be affordable to the people who need them. They are effectively protesting so that rentals will be made available to people who can afford to pay €1500 a month, not for homeless people or people on a housing list.

There are motivated by the housing crisis in general -- not simply the homelessness aspect, which is nonetheless a major component. In any case, plenty of properties in that area, probably on that street, are made available through HAP.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Wasn't Frederick Street a commercial property?

It may have been, or it may have been mixed. It's not really relevant, the Council is very receptive to changing the use of a property, especially during the current crisis. There's even very generous tax relief for doing so in the area of Dublin under discussion.

McMurphy

weldoninhio wrote: »

The scum online putting out info on Gardare finding members of the Public order unit and exposing them as so. Not necessarily the ones that were at Frederick St.

So, then the argument is flawed to begin with.

They need balaclavas to protect their identities, in case some scumbag puts their details on social media.

Scumbags are putting guards details on social media claiming they were at this particular scene regardless.

If anything, I'm even more convinced that the balaclavas might have been useless overkill in this instance.

Seems like a much deeper and complicated problem than what a balaclava might solve.

In fact, it could be argued that they do more harm than good.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You don't need access to a database. Plenty of people know Garda numbers and the names to go with them, particularly people who have had previous interactions with them, like the person who shared the personal details and lunch habits of the Garda in question.

See my response below. If named wrongly, they might be doing more harm than good.

Or they were being worn for their intended purpose, protection.

Protection from what exactly?

The weather?

davo10

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There are motivated by the housing crisis in general -- not simply the homelessness aspect, which is nonetheless a major component. In any case, plenty of properties in that area, probably on that street, are made available through HAP.

It may have been, or it may have been mixed. It's not really relevant, the Council is very receptive to changing the use of a property, especially during the current crisis. There's even very generous tax relief for doing so in the area of Dublin under discussion.

When that building is renovated, do you honestly think it will be priced in the HAP range?

It is very relevant if you are looking for support beyond the socialist/anti austerity/helping homelessness groups. Going into a private property where the owner is not known, has no history of abusing tenants, thumbing your nose at the Courts, then blaming the owner/gardai for evicting college going muppets, isn't the cleverest way of doing it.

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

See my response below. If named wrongly, they might be doing more harm than good.

Not really, they'll just be targeting a different victim.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Protection from what exactly?

The weather?

From that crowd? Spit would be my guess. But it protects from other stuff too. Smoke, dust, fire, corrosive liquids. I think this has been explained a few times. But yes, they also provide protection from the weather.

P_1

davo10 wrote: »

The protesters need to identify their targets and know their audience. Occupying buildings which have no hope of ever being offered to the disadvantaged and where the LL has no history of abusing tenants garners no sympathy for the cause among the general populace who struggle to pay mortgages or whose family members are looking for affordable accommodation.

On the other hand, shaming slum landlords and occupying state/Nama owned properties and forcing them to be offered to the less fortunate will generate huge support.

In that we are in full agreement. Now getting that message across to the protesters will be another battle. Trying to get people on the extremes of any argument to acknowledge the varying shades of gray is an exercise in frustration

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

So, then the argument is flawed to begin with.

They need balaclavas to protect their identities, in case some scumbag puts their details on social media.

Scumbags are putting guards details on social media claiming they were at this particular scene regardless.

If anything, I'm even more convinced that the balaclavas might have been useless overkill in this instance.

Seems like a much deeper and complicated problem than what a balaclava might solve.

In fact, it could be argued that they do more harm than good.

So you have a problem with members of the eru wearing face cover? Because they always do.

Get Real

This issue was about housing. I fully relate to the issues surrounding housing in this country.

But to derail and start talking about balaclavas is ridiculous.

Looking at the posts attached, I can see why you'd think of wearing them.

Ironically, I've protected the privacy of the very people calling on guards to be shot and all types of abuse. Here are two such comments.

Anyone who excuses this behavior is scum in my opinion. Also, these type of comments are justification for balaclava wearing.

People trying to make out like we're living in Spain or Russia. How about balaclavas, and no identity numbers at all? How about a simple whack over the head. Or being turfed out on the first day of entry? Because that's what would happen in other countries.

All we had was a group of guards standing at the bottom of a stairs. For all the videoing and photographing done, there were no scenes of absolute war.

end of the road

the_syco wrote: »

They hide their identities, so that they don't get harassed on the street.

i don't believe so i'm afraid. the balaclava for gardai is not worn to protect identity, at least in these specific cases. a helmet is required to be worn over the balaclava. had they worn the helmet, then it could be reasonably assumed that there was some genuine danger. as it wasn't, then i believe it's reasonable to assume there was no danger. as for the hoodies, they aren't gardai, so should be definitely not be having their faces covered.

the_syco wrote: »

Did the gardai enter the premises where the people were being evicted from?

we have moved on from the gardai, we are now discussing the hoodies.

the_syco wrote: »

The Gardai have numbers on them. Match the number, find the Gardai.

the hoodies had nothing, so unlike the gardai, it would be difficult to trace them.

the_syco wrote: »

You go where you are sent. You may see more Gardai in balaclavas in the future, depending on how these Gardai get harassed.

i'd doubt it, the commissioner has (going on his comments at least) given his verdict on that.

Seth Brundle

davo10 wrote: »

On the other hand, shaming slum landlords and occupying state/Nama owned properties and forcing them to be offered to the less fortunate will generate huge support.

Like Apollo House?
Loads of money raised. Where did it go?

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

Of course a prosecution could be taken.
Injured party make complaint to gardai, Gardai investigate & they identify the offender.
How would seeing someone's face identify them anyway? Unless the injured party actually knew the offender?

Rules should be the same for everyone.

we are assuming the gardai would be able to 100% identify them. the hoodies had no badges or anything else either, assuming they were working for a private security firm or for the sheriff or were private bailiffs which is in my opinion a potential threat to the public.

juno10353 wrote: »

Are sheriff's or registered bailiffs not required by law to perform legal evictions?

it's a good question. i'd assume so.

juno10353 wrote: »

Why are our Gardai supporting a group of unregistered bailiffs.

i don't know. it's very sinister either way.

juno10353 wrote: »

Is that not a case of them supporting an illegal eviction?

no as the eviction is still legal as a court has implemented a court order. it certainly comes across as the gardai supporting sinister dark forces though.

davo10

end of the road wrote: »

we are assuming the gardai would be able to 100% identify them. the hoodies had no badges or anything else either, assuming they were working for a private security firm or for the sheriff or were private bailiffs which is in my opinion a potential threat to the public.



it's a good question. i'd assume so.



i don't know. it's very sinister either way.



no as the eviction is still legal as a court has implemented a court order. it certainly comes across as the gardai supporting sinister dark forces though.

Considering the security personnel were doing their job, carrying out an eviction ordered by the high court on behalf of a private citizen, many people would be concerned about being identified and they/their family targeted by the more unsavoury elements of the "cause". If what has been posted here is true, personal info about the gardai involved has been posted on social media.

Why should the personnel, doing their job, be put at risk? I don't see any problem with items of clothing being worn to hide their faces. Let's be fair, protesters often hide their faces for the very same reason, to prevent identification.

end of the road

weldoninhio wrote: »

Wires are being crossed. If someone has an issue with the Gardaí they can report them via bagde numbers.

The scum online putting out info on Gardaí are finding members of the Public order unit and exposing them as so. Not necessarily the ones that were at Frederick St.

but that seems impossible as we are being told they had their faces covered to protect their identity. so if that is the case, they wouldn't be identified because they have their faces covered. if they are being identified dispite the face covering, then the covering of their faces is redundant.
a badge number would only identify a garda to other gardai, as if there is a database with the list of gardai and their badge numbers, it's not publically accessible. so, if members of the public order unit who were at this eviction are being identified as claimed, then the only way i can see this being possible is down to someone accessing non-public information and leaking it, which is very serious business if that is indeed the case.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You don't need access to a database. Plenty of people know Garda numbers and the names to go with them, particularly people who have had previous interactions with them, like the person who shared the personal details and lunch habits of the Garda in question.





Or they were being worn for their intended purpose, protection.

then as said they would be wearing the helmet as apparently mandated with the face covering.

davo10 wrote: »

Considering the security personnel were doing their job, carrying out an eviction ordered by the high court on behalf of a private citizen, many people would be concerned about being identified and they/their family targeted by the more unsavoury elements of the "cause". If what has been posted here is true, personal info about the gardai involved has been posted on social media.

Why should the personnel, doing their job, be put at risk? I don't see any problem with items of clothing being worn to hide their faces. Let's be fair, protesters often hide their faces for the very same reason, to prevent identification.

they aren't being put at risk. other private security are required to be identifiable in some form. if we are going to have private security carying out evictions, then they should absolutely be identifiable in some form, via a badge etc.
if they don't want to take the risk of being identified, don't do the job. either way, there should not be in any circumstances, completely unidentifiable, hooded men operating in our country in a law enforcement capacity. protesters are members of the public, so them covering their faces is not the same as either a member of gardai, or a member of a defacto law enforcement doing the same, when unnecessary.

davo10

end of the road wrote: »

but that seems impossible as we are being told they had their faces covered to protect their identity. so if that is the case, they wouldn't be identified because they have their faces covered. if they are being identified dispite the face covering, then the covering of their faces is redundant.
a badge number would only identify a garda to other gardai, as if there is a database with the list of gardai and their badge numbers, it's not publically accessible. so, if members of the public order unit who were at this eviction are being identified as claimed, then the only way i can see this being possible is down to someone accessing non-public information and leaking it, which is very serious business if that is indeed the case.



then as said they would be wearing the helmet as apparently mandated with the face covering.




they aren't being put at risk. other private security are required to be identifiable in some form. if we are going to have private security carying out evictions, then they should absolutely be identifiable in some form, via a badge etc.
if they don't want to take the risk of being identified, don't do the job. either way, there should not be in any circumstances, completely unidentifiable, hooded men operating in our country in a law enforcement capacity. protesters are members of the public, so them covering their faces is not the same as either a member of gardai, or a member of a defacto law enforcement doing the same, when unnecessary.

You really believe they would not be at risk? Seriously? This wasn't a standard eviction, the protestors got the media/crowd attention they wanted, the situation was hostile.

I'm not sure the security company were acting in a law enforcement capacity, I suspect they were hired by the property owner in a private capacity to remove people from their property. I doubt they were paid by/acting on behalf of the state. They are also private citizens.

The protesters were asked to leave, a court then told them to leave, they counted on a confrontation ensuing, they got it, now you are complaining. Tough.

Yeah_Right

The Garda shouldn't have been wearing balaclavas. They should have been wearing gas masks. Tear gas and pepper spray would have cleared the scumbags out very quickly and the private security guys wouldn't need to be involved.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

we are assuming the gardai would be able to 100% identify them. the hoodies had no badges or anything else either, assuming they were working for a private security firm or for the sheriff or were private bailiffs which is in my opinion a potential threat to the public.



it's a good question. i'd assume so.



i don't know. it's very sinister either way.



no as the eviction is still legal as a court has implemented a court order. it certainly comes across as the gardai supporting sinister dark forces though.

Ridiculous. Gardai are not there supporting anyone.
They always attend evictions, merely to maintain the public peace.
There were only a few Gardai there to begin with, like every eviction. Only when things were getting out of hand, were the public order involved.
Nothing sinister & they would not have been there if it was straightforward.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

They always attend evictions, merely to maintain the public peace.

Eh? No, they do not!

Most evictions are perfectly peaceful affairs, even when the occupier is overholding.

tayto lover

What was the purpose of the protest anyway as it seems to have got lost in here?
Surely it can have little to do with homelessness as the Dail or Council offices would have been more appropriate places for it.

Loves_lorries

I don't support breaking into private property or left wing politicians but I do suspect both FF and FG are in thrall to owners of land in key locations, add to that, I think we need an overhaul of planning law, we need to build high whether people like it or not, you want an open view, live in connemara.

Loves_lorries

Anarchists oppose private property full stop but the current situation is a joke, was watching a property show on rte the other night and a gay couple paid 340k for an ugly cottage in North Wall

homerjay2005

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

If this is what the future holds, we should all be worried imo, it's clearly not a welcoming development if this is how we're going to proceed as a functioning democracy.

if anything, its a positive sign for the future of the country that law enforcement is finally taking control of situations where people are breaking the law.

im baffled how anybody has a problem with this - a court order was issued, it was carried out, its over. we move on.