The Frederick St protest and reaction

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Eh? No, they do not!

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

Yes they do.
They always have

Seth Brundle

homerjay2005 wrote: »

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.

But, but, but the gardai were wearing balaclavas, not their hats?!?!

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

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.

see attached.



One of the protestors was handing these out on Frederick Street a couple of weeks back.

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

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.

i have to disagree bubblypop that the non-gardai at that eviction being covered and having no badge (if private security or similar) isn't sinister.

homerjay2005 wrote: »

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.

this isn't anything to do with law enforcement taking control of situations where people are breaking the law, of which people are happy over happening. it's about the sinister nature of hoodies being at an eviction along with the gardai, something which it isn't baffling to wonder why people would have an issue with.

McMurphy

bubblypop wrote: »

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

No, no problem with them wearing them, in fact I actually posted that very opinion fairly early on in the thread.

What I do have a problem with, are the folk who seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths depending on how the wind is blowing.

"The masks are needed because someone might put their details on social media/their details were put on social media anyway because their numbers were visible" which in either scenario makes the balaclavas pointless


Then there are the others who can't understand what difference the balaclavas make, as sure unless people personally recognised them, they're unrecognizable anyway. Which also makes them pointless.

No one has a problem that the guards might want anyone to recognise them (embarrassment maybe), it's the dissident Republican/Loyalist looking thugs they're supporting that's the worrying development.

Anyway, the head of the policing authority has said they will be taking it up with the commissioner (who thinks protocol was broke) and Leo apparently is wading in too.

What is it with AGS that they keep making haimes of things?

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No, no problem with them wearing them, in fact I actually posted that very opinion fairly early on in the thread.

What I do have a problem with, are the folk who seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths depending on how the wind is blowing.

"The masks are needed because someone might put their details on social media/their details were put on social media anyway because their numbers were visible" which in either scenario makes the balaclavas pointless


Then there are the others who can't understand what difference the balaclavas make, as sure unless people personally recognised them, they're unrecognizable anyway. Which also makes them pointless.

No one has a problem that the guards might want anyone to recognise them (embarrassment maybe), it's the dissident Republican/Loyalist looking thugs they're supporting that's the worrying development.

Anyway, the head of the policing authority has said they will be taking it up with the commissioner (who thinks protocol was broke) and Leo apparently is wading in too.

What is it with AGS that they keep making haimes of things?

Not there supporting anyone except the peace.
That's their job, no matter how often you say it, doesn't make it true.

Pity the new commissioner is as spineless as all the others & afraid to back up his men instead of licking government butt.

Captain Obvious

bubblypop wrote: »

Not there supporting anyone except the peace.
That's their job, no matter how often you say it, doesn't make it true.

Pity the new commissioner is as spineless as all the others & afraid to back up his men instead of licking government butt.

In fairness, the only thin the commissioner said is that the helmet should be worn with the hood. It's not exactly an indictment.


I also find it odd people saying the Gardaí supported the landlords. The Gardaí literally formed a line in the middle. The only people they had contact with were people who tried to cross that line. If the landlords staff had tried to attack the protestors then the Gardaí would have stopped them also. They basically acted like a mirror to aggression and the protestors don't like what that mirror shows.


I don't think I'll ever understand this mentality of trying to pick a fight with the Gardaí whenever there is a protest. I get that they are an easy target, not being able to respond personally to criticism, but how stupid do you have to be to physically and verbally attack them and then give out they are on the wrong side. A professional police force enforces the law and preserves the police. The same people who criticise the Gardaí constantly for not being professional are the people giving out about them enforcing the law and preserving the peace in this instance. it really is a no win situation.

McMurphy

bubblypop wrote: »

Not there supporting anyone except the peace.
That's their job, no matter how often you say it, doesn't make it true.

Been said numerous times already, the optics were bad, period.

Pity the new commissioner is as spineless as all the others & afraid to back up his men instead of licking government butt.

Indeed, political policing isn't healthy for a democratic state.

homerjay2005

end of the road wrote: »

he sinister nature of hoodies being at an eviction along with the gardai,

hoodies are sinister now when worn by law enforcers? ive heard it all now :D:D:D:D..

care to tell us why people who were abused, (1 racially), physically assaulted and everything else, should have to show their faces? so that social media keyboard warriors can plaster their faces all over the internet?

and this was not an eviction, this was a removal of people who were in somewhere they shouldnt have been.

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

Not there supporting anyone except the peace.
That's their job, no matter how often you say it, doesn't make it true.

Pity the new commissioner is as spineless as all the others & afraid to back up his men instead of licking government butt.

not at all bubblypop, he is backing up his men and isn't spineless. i don't trust him personally but i agree with his comments in relation to this issue. rules are rules and if the commissioner decides that certain protacall hasn't been followed then it hasn't been followed. following protacall is non-negotiable IMO.

homerjay2005 wrote: »

hoodies are sinister now when worn by law enforcers? ive heard it all now ..

care to tell us why people who were abused, (1 racially), physically assaulted and everything else, should have to show their faces? so that social media keyboard warriors can plaster their faces all over the internet?

is there video or any other evidence of this racial abuse and asalt?

homerjay2005 wrote: »

and this was not an eviction, this was a removal of people who were in somewhere they shouldnt have been.

semantics. removal, eviction, both are suitable terms as they involve people being removed from a property.

Captain Obvious

end of the road wrote: »

not at all bubblypop, he is backing up his men and isn't spineless. i don't trust him personally but i agree with his comments in relation to this issue. rules are rules and if the commissioner decides that certain protacall hasn't been followed then it hasn't been followed. following protacall is non-negotiable IMO.

Such as obeying court orders?

end of the road wrote: »

is there video or any other evidence of this racial abuse and asalt?

You believe it's a lie?

end of the road wrote: »

semantics. removal, eviction, both are suitable terms as they involve people being removed from a property.

There's a big difference between removing a group of protestors from a commercial property and turfing a family out of the home.

end of the thread folks

guylikeme

[Deleted User] wrote: »

end of the thread folks

I declare not!

Reflecting on this incident, i think we can all at least agree that building high rise will fix alot of the issues. Yes there will still be those on both sides with extreme views(the left looking for houses for all, the right saying fk them geta job etc). However, at least it may allow people a realistic chance to live in the city and build a life.

Seth Brundle

guylikeme wrote: »

I declare not!

Reflecting on this incident, i think we can all at least agree that building high rise will fix alot of the issues. Yes there will still be those on both sides with extreme views(the left looking for houses for all, the right saying fk them geta job etc). However, at least it may allow people a realistic chance to live in the city and build a life.

Building upwards won't necessarily make cheaper homes but will allow people to live near places if work which reduces commuting times and therefore improve quality of life, air, etc.
However it won't remove the selfish sense of entitlement held by so many out there!

guylikeme

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Building upwards won't necessarily make cheaper homes but will allow people to live near places if work which reduces commuting times and therefore improve quality of life, air, etc.
However it won't remove the selfish sense of entitlement held by so many out there!

No political policy will remove cunfts from society but my suggestion would definitely be a step in the right direction.

homerjay2005

end of the road wrote: »

semantics. removal, eviction, both are suitable terms as they involve people being removed from a property.

lets just say as an example, it was somebody elderly in your family that owned a large house somewhere in Dublin, been in the family for 5 or 6 generations.

last few years, they were in nursing home, but every few months came out to spend sometime in the house - otherwise it was unused. one weekend, a group of people break into the house and occupy it illegally. your family cannot get them to leave.

you've tried mediation - they wont leave.
you've got the guards around - they wont leave.
you go to court - they still wont leave, so you get a court order to evict them - they still dont leave.

would you be so sympathetic then and dismiss the actions as "people being removed from a property"?

its amazing how people seem to be more upset about a few lads wearing head gear (and that allegedly some van had no tax on it) than condemn the fact that people broke the law.

20Cent

homerjay2005 wrote: »

lets just say as an example, it was somebody elderly in your family that owned a large house somewhere in Dublin, been in the family for 5 or 6 generations.

last few years, they were in nursing home, but every few months came out to spend sometime in the house - otherwise it was unused. one weekend, a group of people break into the house and occupy it illegally. your family cannot get them to leave.

you've tried mediation - they wont leave.
you've got the guards around - they wont leave.
you go to court - they still wont leave, so you get a court order to evict them - they still dont leave.

would you be so sympathetic then and dismiss the actions as "people being removed from a property"?

its amazing how people seem to be more upset about a few lads wearing head gear (and that allegedly some van had no tax on it) than condemn the fact that people broke the law.

Your imaginary scenario that didn't happen isn't much use to the discussion is it.

davo10

20Cent wrote: »

Your imaginary scenario that didn't happen isn't much use to the discussion is it.

You are missing the point.

The people that the protestors are trying to get support from could be concerned about this scenario along with a multitude of others. This wasn't an abandoned property or owned by Nama, this was a property owned by a citizen of the state which to my knowledge, has no history whatsoever of abuse. To those watching the pictures on TV, it looked like a bunch of college students picked a building that was empty at random, and occupied it. They admitted they knew absolutely nothing about the owner.

Next time it could be an empty building that the owner can't afford to renovate at the moment, or can't get planning, or Aunt Jane's house who has been in a nursing home for 5 years.

3 days later this story is on life support with zero public sympathy for the protesters. What little public interest there is, is about balaclavas, not the housing crisis. Next time the security firm will be more careful and there will be even less support.

homerjay2005

homerjay2005 wrote: »

lets just say as an example, it was somebody elderly in your family that owned a large house somewhere in Dublin, been in the family for 5 or 6 generations.

Why though?

The owner of the house on Frederick Street is an accountant who lives in Dublin 4, not some doddery old dear who comes out of the County Home once in a blue moon to reminisce about the tenements.

The owner of the house on Summerhill Parade is a well-known slum landlord, who had previously been piling 6-8 tenants to individual rooms in that property, before those tenants were evicted, allegedly illegally.

davo10

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why though?

The owner of the house on Frederick Street is an accountant who lives in Dublin 4, not some doddery old dear who comes out of the County Home once in a blue moon to reminisce about the tenements.

The owner of the house on Summerhill Parade is a well-known slum landlord, who had previously been piling 6-8 tenants to individual rooms in that property, before those tenants were evicted, allegedly illegally.

What has his profession got to do with anything? He is a citizen of the state not breaking any law? Is there any evidence he is a slum landlord?

The house in Summerhill is empty, the protesters called for compulsory purchase by the state, so the protesters want us the taxpayers to buy properties costing hundreds of thousands just because they are empty? Where is that money going to come from? I'd prefer it to be spent on the health and education system, not making property owners in Dublin wealthy.

What happened to the 20 Brazilians staying in Summerhill, did the protesters house them? They have probably moved on to another over occupied house where rent is cheap relative to other properties. Also, if you go over to the accommodation forum, you will find cases where LLs have rented their properties only to find out later that there are twice as many people staying there than they were aware of, are they slum landlords?

davo10

davo10 wrote: »

What has his profession got to do with anything? He is a citizen of the state not breaking any law? Is there any evidence he is a slum landlord?

She.

It's relevant in that your analogy to some old dear who's just a bit fond of her property is redundant here.

The house in Summerhill is empty, the protesters called for compulsory purchase by the state, so the protesters want us the taxpayers to buy properties costing hundreds of thousands just because they are empty? Where is that money going to come from?

The same place all compulsory purchase of land comes from, the Central Fund.

What happened to the 20 Brazilians staying in Summerhill, did the protesters house them?

How on earth could the activists have housed 20 students? I assume they are not slum landlords.

Anyway, there were over 100 people evicted in total from the five neighbouring properties owned by the O'Donnells. but who cares, right? Something, something entitlement.

davo10

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

She.

It's relevant in that your analogy to some old dear who's just a bit fond of her property is redundant here.

The same place all compulsory purchase of land comes from, the Central Fund.

How on earth could the activists have housed 20 students? I assume they are not slum landlords.

Anyway, there were over 100 people evicted in total from the five neighbouring properties owned by the O'Donnells. but who cares, right? Something, something entitlement.

Again, you are missing the big, obvious, elephant sized point. To get public support you need to get their sympathy, but you are not going to get their sympathy if they think this could happen to them or someone like them. People don't have sympathy for banks or vulture funds or Nama because they don't identify with them. A private citizen, professional, worker, doing nothing illegal is someone we all identify with. Hence no sympathy or support from the general populace.

Again you missed the point on the tenants, they were evicted because of over crowding, protesters got involved, got their headlines, clapped themselves on the back, but what happened to the tenants? They got lost in the story, did the protesters do anything for them? I doubt it, it's not their problem, and no headlines in that.

Owned, or formally owned by the O'Donnells? And if the evictions were illegal the tenants could have brought their case to the very tenant leaning RTB, did they?

Every citizen of the state, be they protesters or property owner (which don't forget, tens of thousands are) is entitled to the protection of the law, if they do something illegal, the laws are there to punish them. When one side ignores the law, then they should not be surprised if the state and its citizens use the laws to their benefit, in this case, throwing muppets out.

Not one homeless person in there, it's beyond belief that one of these idiots didn't think to add the powerful effect that would have benefited them in generating public sympathy by having homeless people in there. Instead they had a couple of giggling students with soppy haircuts.

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

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

There's a Garda wearing his mask too high up on his head. Someone used some facial recognition software and it brought up a picture of the Garda from a news story/article he was involved in before, where he was named.


Apparently that's how it was done. Only one has been ID'ed as far as I know and it's that one that had too much of his face visible, and a pre-existing photo online of his unmasked face.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a Garda wearing his mask too high up on his head. Someone used some facial recognition software and it brought up a picture of the Garda from a news story/article he was involved in before, where he was named.


Apparently that's how it was done. Only one has been ID'ed as far as I know and it's that one that had too much of his face visible, and a pre-existing photo online of his unmasked face.

Seems a bit OTT, just because he or she attended the scene where the enforcement was being carried out, but the world is full of idiots as my dad would say.

Personally, I actually have great admiration for the Gardai, I think they do a fairly good job, and the morons plastering them over social media is a worrying trend that admittedly needs to be tackled.

None the less, I think the masked men resembling paramilitaries in this incident was a PR disaster for them (IMO), remember the policing authority has said they will be taking it up with the commissioner, so it's not over yet either.

Inevitably, it will (most probably) eventually be leaked who exactly the masked lads were, and if/when that happens, it could result in the poo hitting the big mechanical spinning thing.

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There's a Garda wearing his mask too high up on his head. Someone used some facial recognition software and it brought up a picture of the Garda from a news story/article he was involved in before, where he was named.

I'm calling bull**** on that claim of facial recognition software.

More like a bunch of ****heads having regular deading with Gardai put 1+1 and got 12

McMurphy

Gatling wrote: »

I'm calling bull**** on that claim of facial recognition software.

More like a bunch of ****heads having regular deading with Gardai put 1+1 and got 12

My thoughts too.

Something needs to be done to stop this happening, if they can introduce laws on trolling and revenge porn etc, I don't see why something similar cannot be done to prevent shyte like this happening on social media.

homerjay2005

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a Garda wearing his mask too high up on his head. Someone used some facial recognition software and it brought up a picture of the Garda from a news story/article he was involved in before, where he was named.

this is f*cking disgraceful. when you see people doing this nonsense, then the gardai and anybody else carrying out law enforcement, are 100% entitled to protect their identity.

Eggs For Dinner

Really plssed off with the constant use of the word 'evicted' here. It's as if this is being likened to people being put out of their homes. These are gob****es illegally entering someone's property and being removed on foot of a court order for breaking the law

the_syco

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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

The numbers are there if you want to complain about a Garda. But the crusties can keep an eye out for certain numbers (that would be displayed on the Gardai shoulders) to match them up with the protest. Then they can use facial recognition software to get help the get the name of the Gardai.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

see attached.

So the crusties want Soviet Style CPO to transfer privately owned properties to the state. Not much of a surprise.

=-=

I think the Brazilians that were evicted from the other property were illegals, and this is why there have been no cases brought against the landlord via the RTB. I have heard of such lettings in Dublin where multiples of illegals from one country rent a place together as they get paid below minimum wage by unscrupulous employers who employ the illegals.

NIMAN

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Really plssed off with the constant use of the word 'evicted' here. It's as if this is being likened to people being put out of their homes. These are gob****es illegally entering someone's property and being removed on foot of a court order for breaking the law

Using the proper word 'removed from their illegal occupation ' doesn't quite fit in with the leftie agenda though, does it?

McMurphy

NIMAN wrote: »

Using the proper word 'removed from their illegal occupation ' doesn't quite fit in with the leftie agenda though, does it?

The Gardai hardly have a leftie agenda do they

Earlier, gardai insisted that the removal of protesters from the building by men wearing balaclavas was "a peaceful eviction".

blanch152

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

She.

It's relevant in that your analogy to some old dear who's just a bit fond of her property is redundant here.

The same place all compulsory purchase of land comes from, the Central Fund.

How on earth could the activists have housed 20 students? I assume they are not slum landlords.

Anyway, there were over 100 people evicted in total from the five neighbouring properties owned by the O'Donnells. but who cares, right? Something, something entitlement.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/o-donnells-of-gorse-hill-behind-1-85m-killiney-house-purchase-1.3385749

Are these the O'Donnells, beloved of the freemen and the left, who fought lengthy battles against the banks? I thought they were to be admired and defended?

Or is it some other O'Donnell?

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

I'm calling bull**** on that claim of facial recognition software.

More like a bunch of ****heads having regular deading with Gardai put 1+1 and got 12

Well I'm only telling you what I seen on Facebook.


This is what i seen on Facebook. I've edited it, so hopefully it's okay to post, as I don't feel it's at all ID'ing the Garda.

Picture Link:

https://s15.postimg.cc/6qdb6pkgr/gardafaceedit.jpg




As an aside, I'd like to see the Gardai find out who is using the FB page that 'outed' this Garda. Surely there's a crime committed here?

The 'peaceful protestors' are all giving out that the Gardai and Security lads didn't identify themselves, and are full of 'we've no issue with them doing their job, we just think it'd be safer for everyone if they showed their faces', but the minute they actually do figure out the ID of a Garda, the witch hunt immediately begins.

Utter scum bags through and through. They deserve a good hiding in my opinion. But unfortunately, instead will likely get a free house in a high-demand area instead.

I see footage of John Connors on the Late Late show aswell calling the Gardai scum. This is the same chap that was lolling it up at Lidl getting torn apart by the JCB in the snow incident that time. Wish they'd stop giving that moron air time.

NewbridgeIR

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I'm only telling you what I seen on Facebook.


This is what i seen on Facebook. I've edited it, so hopefully it's okay to post, as I don't feel it's at all ID'ing the Garda.

Picture Link:

https://s15.postimg.cc/6qdb6pkgr/gardafaceedit.jpg

Why did you blur out the name of the poster?

NewbridgeIR

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

Why did you blur out the name of the poster?

To keep it from being pulled by a mod/s, to not ID anyone online etc. playing it safe.

Sweetemotion

No matter what side of this you are on.

There is something seriously wrong going on within our garda force. A young man left in a vegetative state after being run over by a motorcycle with witnesses and they say they can't do anything. A landlord wants people evicted from his property and they are out in full force.

It's just so fecking messed up.

RobbieMD

Sweetemotion wrote: »

No matter what side of this you are on.

There is something seriously wrong going on within our garda force. A young man left in a vegetative state after being run over by a motorcycle with witnesses and they say they can't do anything. A landlord wants people evicted from his property and they are out in full force.

It's just so fecking messed up.

Not sure if you're trying to be misleading but the Irish Times reports that investigations are ongoing for the horrible scrambler incident.

How many Gardai should show up for the protestors? Two?

NIMAN

I know in the UK police have called on people who made inflammatory comments online, and people have been charged with offences.

Not sure if could or would do this in Ireland?

If answer is yes, then it's about time that naming and giving addresses of guards online is made a criminal offence.

Sweetemotion

RobbieMD wrote: »

Not sure if you're trying to be misleading but the Irish Times reports that investigations are ongoing for the horrible scrambler incident.

How many Gardai should show up for the protestors? Two?

The Garda should be there to protect everyone including the protestors. Not to hide their faces and help a private security company.

upandcumming

Sweetemotion wrote: »

The Garda should be there to protect everyone including the protestors. Not to hide their faces and help a private security company.

And that is exactly what they did. Wearing the balaclavas appears to have been necessary.

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

No matter what side of this you are on.

There is something seriously wrong going on within our garda force. A young man left in a vegetative state after being run over by a motorcycle with witnesses and they say they can't do anything. A landlord wants people evicted from his property and they are out in full force.

It's just so fecking messed up.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

The Garda should be there to protect everyone including the protestors. Not to hide their faces and help a private security company.

Ahhh.. you had a good point, but then rubbished it all for the 'private security' angle.




Besides, trespass is a criminal issue, the Gardai shouldn't have needed the private security, it should have been the Gardai themselves that were firing people out the door.


I reckon the only reason the masked security were there in the first place, was to avoid the visual of a Garda throwing a protestor out the 1st floor window like an episode of the A-Team (which is how I personally would have liked it to have happened, as I feel the Gardai repeatedly show themselves up as being weak and afraid, instead of having a proper, intimidating presence at these scenes).


I'd presume the 'private security' were just Gardai in a mask.

blanch152

Sweetemotion wrote: »

No matter what side of this you are on.

There is something seriously wrong going on within our garda force. A young man left in a vegetative state after being run over by a motorcycle with witnesses and they say they can't do anything. A landlord wants people evicted from his property and they are out in full force.

It's just so fecking messed up.

What law was broken by the scrambler?

blanch152

Sweetemotion wrote: »

The Garda should be there to protect everyone including the protestors. Not to hide their faces and help a private security company.

The Gardai should not be subject to their families and children being harrassed and intimidated by the protestors.

Idbatterim

The government have just pushed this too far, what did they expect I’m surprised it took this long. I hope it blows up on a scale a multiple water protest, this scandal is infinitely bigger! Fair play to those occupying the properties, it’s a hell of a lot more than most are doing about this housing catastrophe, I suppose they should just wait for another few years though ? And according to the Irish government, things will be ok. L! O! L!

Idbatterim

davo10 wrote: »

What has his profession got to do with anything? He is a citizen of the state not breaking any law? Is there any evidence he is a slum landlord?

The house in Summerhill is empty, the protesters called for compulsory purchase by the state, so the protesters want us the taxpayers to buy properties costing hundreds of thousands just because they are empty? Where is that money going to come from? I'd prefer it to be spent on the health and education system, not making property owners in Dublin wealthy.

What happened to the 20 Brazilians staying in Summerhill, did the protesters house them? They have probably moved on to another over occupied house where rent is cheap relative to other properties. Also, if you go over to the accommodation forum, you will find cases where LLs have rented their properties only to find out later that there are twice as many people staying there than they were aware of, are they slum landlords?

What do you mean where will it come from ? Where will the few billion in extra funding on budget 2019 come from? Stop hiking welfare for a start, would pay for a lot of things...

RobbieMD

Sweetemotion wrote: »

The Garda should be there to protect everyone including the protestors. Not to hide their faces and help a private security company.

Personally I don't think the Gardai should be there at all. But you didn't answer my question. How many Gardai should show up to a protest?

the_syco

Sweetemotion wrote: »

There is something seriously wrong going on within our garda force. A young man left in a vegetative state after being run over by a motorcycle with witnesses and they say they can't do anything.

He was found, arrested, and then let go, with a file sent to the DPP. Most likely the scum was underage, so they couldn't hold him.

blanch152 wrote: »

What law was broken by the scrambler?

Hit & run.

Idbatterim wrote: »

Fair play to those occupying the properties, it’s a hell of a lot more than most are doing about this housing catastrophe

For protesting in houses that have planning permission to be turned into apartments, instead of in a NAMA property?

Wheeliebin30

Idbatterim wrote: »

The government have just pushed this too far, what did they expect I’m surprised it took this long. I hope it blows up on a scale a multiple water protest, this scandal is infinitely bigger! Fair play to those occupying the properties, it’s a hell of a lot more than most are doing about this housing catastrophe, I suppose they should just wait for another few years though ? And according to the Irish government, things will be ok. L! O! L!

Scandal???

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I'm only telling you what I seen on Facebook.


This is what i seen on Facebook. I've edited it, so hopefully it's okay to post, as I don't feel it's at all ID'ing the Garda.

Picture Link:

https://s15.postimg.cc/6qdb6pkgr/gardafaceedit.jpg




As an aside, I'd like to see the Gardai find out who is using the FB page that 'outed' this Garda. Surely there's a crime committed here?

The 'peaceful protestors' are all giving out that the Gardai and Security lads didn't identify themselves, and are full of 'we've no issue with them doing their job, we just think it'd be safer for everyone if they showed their faces', but the minute they actually do figure out the ID of a Garda, the witch hunt immediately begins.

Utter scum bags through and through. They deserve a good hiding in my opinion. But unfortunately, instead will likely get a free house in a high-demand area instead.

I see footage of John Connors on the Late Late show aswell calling the Gardai scum. This is the same chap that was lolling it up at Lidl getting torn apart by the JCB in the snow incident that time. Wish they'd stop giving that moron air time.

A comment from under that picture.

Big dirty pigs should stop all the fighting and feuds and go to war with the Garda start murdering the bastards I'm not afraid there uniforms I'll do life for 1 them scum

Didn't even conceal his identity.

20Cent

Facial recongnition software to identify gardai. Hitting qanon levels of hysteria here folks.