The Frederick St protest and reaction

weldoninhio

Seth Brundle wrote: »

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

I wonder if someone was having a shyte on the street would the Garda have had to use his bally to catch it, since he didn’t have his hat??

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!

You want anarchy yeah?

No law and order and every scrote can do as he pleases?

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

You want anarchy yeah?

No law and order and every scrote can do as he pleases?

What anarchy was there during the water protests?

Even the Gardai commended the protests in the city centre considering the amount of people in attendance.

A few years on and some people are still trying to demonize those who stood up to FGs water privatisation plans.

It's over lads, move on.

suicide_circus

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What anarchy was there during the water protests?

Even the Gardai commended the protests in the city centre considering the amount of people in attendance.

A few years on and some people are still trying to demonize those who stood up to FGs water privatisation plans.

It's over lads, move on.

and our children's children will thank us for it

McMurphy

suicide_circus wrote: »

and our children's children will thank us for it

Have you ever felt the need to thank your grandparents for any of our public services


I just thanked mine for the odd tenner here and there, and the annual Christmas tin of roses.

Seth Brundle

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What anarchy was there during the water protests?

Does gardai getting assaulted and spat on whilst protecting water meter installers doing their job count as anarchy?
What about scumbag intimidating water meter installer and following them home and posting their details on facebook?

suicide_circus wrote: »

and our children's children will thank us for it

Yes because the water system will be even better then :rolleyes:

Wheeliebin30

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What anarchy was there during the water protests?

Even the Gardai commended the protests in the city centre considering the amount of people in attendance.

A few years on and some people are still trying to demonize those who stood up to FGs water privatisation plans.

It's over lads, move on.

Link to FGs water privatisation plans?

McMurphy

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Does gardai getting assaulted and spat on whilst protecting water meter installers doing their job count as anarchy?
What about scumbag intimidating water meter installer and following them home and posting their details on facebook?

You wish to redefine the meaning of anarchy? Be my guest.

Besides, no matter how nasty any of the above sounds, it pales in comparison to an actual government TD who was part of a government wanting to introduce water charges - attacking one of his own constituents in a bar with a broken glass all in the name of the water protests.

In comparison we seen a TD who was in opposition to the govt introduce water charges arrested and conspired against by several gardai in a farcical court case that wouldn't have been out of place in a straight to tv movie.

Now, despicable and all as both scenarios were, I'd not use hyperbole such as anarchy, so you and your other spin doctors go take your hyperbole for a sunday drive or something.

Your water services will thank you for it.

Wheeliebin30

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You wish to redefine the meaning of anarchy? Be my guest.

Besides, no matter how nasty any of the above sounds, it pales in comparison to an actual government TD who was part of a government wanting to introduce water charges - attacking one of his own constituents in a bar with a broken glass all in the name of the water protests.

In comparison we seen a TD who was in opposition to the govt introduce water charges arrested and conspired against by several gardai in a farcical court case that wouldn't have been out of place in a straight to tv movie.

Now, despicable and all as both scenarios were, I'd not use hyperbole such as anarchy, so you and your other spin doctors go take your hyperbole for a sunday drive or something.

Your water services will thank you for it.

Still waiting on your link?

Idbatterim

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

You want anarchy yeah?

No law and order and every scrote can do as he pleases?

the scrotes are doing as they please, easy solutions and they are happy with the status quo. (Im referring to FG and FF obviously) I know people who have never claimed welfare living in f*cking garages, there is a thread on boards about a lad living in a van, while trying to save for a house. This isnt just about the homeless believe it or not, its about hard working people totally and utterly f*cked, because its suits FG and their mates best, I voted for them on multiple occasions, not again!

This is the problem here, they adopt an outrageous position on probably the most important thing there is, shelter, the others are total economic incompetents and will no doubt blow the welfare state up even further, no wonder the place is a joke!

On housing, people thinking there should just be a "do what you want approach' despite the cost to society, get real! we live in a bloody society, or at least we are told we do. Hoarding property during a housing catastrophe is like hoarding food during a famine. Those people doing it are societies, @Im alright jacks" I couldnt care less for them, let them make money other ways! They pushed it way too far as usual here and the only thing that will make them deviate, is people power! Its disgusting that it had to go this far and that is entirely on the government. Eoghan Muphy saying it cant be fixed over night, no ****! BUT they have been in power for 8 f**cking years!

WASTERS given houses for free, guaranteed incomes, what stress do they have?! |(I think some deem these the vulnerable) Yet low and middle income earners left in a poisonous position, with a worse standard of living!

the below article hits the nail on the head!

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/north-frederick-street-looks-like-proof-that-the-system-is-conspiring-against-the-people-1.3628003

https://www.cooperative-individualism.org/churchill-winston_mother-of-all-monopolies-1909.htm

The Mother of all Monopolies
Winston S. Churchill

[From a Speech Delivered at King's Theatre in Edinburgh on 17 July 1909]


It is quite true that land monopoly is not the only monopoly which exists, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies - it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. It is quite true that unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit which individuals are able to secure; but it is the principal form of unearned increment which is derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but which are positively detrimental to the general public.

Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position. Land, I say, differs from all other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions.

Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of our monopolist opponents to prove that other forms of property and increment are exactly the same and are similar in all respects to the unearned increment in land.

Wheeliebin30

Idbatterim wrote: »

the scrotes are doing as they please, easy solutions and they are happy with the status quo. (Im referring to FG and FF obviously) I know people who have never claimed welfare living in f*cking garages, there is a thread on boards about a lad living in a van, while trying to save for a house. This isnt just about the homeless believe it or not, its about hard working people totally and utterly f*cked, because its suits FG and their mates best, I voted for them on multiple occasions, not again!

This is the problem here, they adopt an outrageous position on probably the most important thing there is, shelter, the others are total economic incompetents and will no doubt blow the welfare state up even further, no wonder the place is a joke!

On housing, people thinking there should just be a "do what you want approach' despite the cost to society, get real! we live in a bloody society, or at least we are told we do. They pushed it way too far as usual here and the only thing that will make them deviate, is people power! Its disgusting that it had to go this far and that is entirely on the government. Eoghan Muphy saying it cant be fixed over night, no ****! BUT they have been in power for 8 f**cking years!

WASTERS given houses for free, guaranteed incomes, what stress do they have?! |(I think some deem these the vulnerable) Yet low and middle income earners left in a poisonous position, with a worse standard of living!

the below article hits the nail on the head!

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/north-frederick-street-looks-like-proof-that-the-system-is-conspiring-against-the-people-1.3628003

Wow you seem to be angry with everyone and every party, your post is all over the place.

Can you tell me in one sentence what you are on about?

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Still waiting on your link?

Why?

So you can tell me that the link doesn't mean what it says, etc etc etc, blah blah blah?

The water protests worked, they were fairly successful imo - they forced FGs hand in suspending them, the rest is history.

My guess is this is what ldbatterim is referring to when he mentioned them.

Wheeliebin30

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Why?

So you can tell me that the link doesn't mean what it says, etc etc etc, blah blah blah?

The water protests worked, they were fairly successful imo - they forced FGs hand in suspending them, the rest is history.

My guess is this is what ldbatterim is referring to when he mentioned them.

Em no.

I just am asking for a link to your claim.

I’m taking from your lack of a link you are in fact talking absolutel bull**** like 99% of these anti government nonsense groups.

I think the best one was water meters give you cancer.

Bunch of morons.

Idbatterim

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Wow you seem to be angry with everyone and every party, your post is all over the place.

Can you tell me in one sentence what you are on about?

the government are ideologically opposed to state owned housing, they are making hundreds of thousands of people lives a misery, so a handful of their mates primarily, can benefit. It also helps that hundreds of thousands of their voters are homeowners and or landlords.

Wheeliebin30

Idbatterim wrote: »

the government are ideologically opposed to state owned housing, they are making hundreds of thousands of people lives a misery, so a handful of their mates primarily, can benefit. It also helps that hundreds of thousands of their voters are homeowners and or landlords.

Hold on.

You just ranted that waters are getting housed for free?

Are these waters living in misery?

What mates?

Who are you referring too?

I don’t understand your point.

dxhound2005

The protesters are very interested in finding out the background of Gardai. I would be interested to find out whether some of the protesters come from families who own property which is empty a lot of the time, like holiday homes.

Or maybe some of them have parents who are landlords, or have property abroad. It would be a bit hypocritical if this turned out to be the case, and I don't think they would appreciate their holiday homes being invaded by a mob.

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Em no.

I just am asking for a link to your claim.

Why would I bother digging up links to things you are already well aware of, as you have already discussed them in other threads?

Reasons to believe the water services were to privatised?

We had numerous references to how customers data would be sold (which the govt later pulled citing as an 'error' and the 'privatisation being ultimately envisaged" in the eurostat letter.

Plenty of things to point to privatisation which were always an "error" or "didn't mean what it looks like"

The only thing we have that it would never be privatised was the man reassuring us it wouldn't. Because the man never tells lies or talks through his hoop.

I’m taking from your lack of a link you are in fact talking absolutel bull**** like 99% of these anti government nonsense groups.

I think the best one was water meters give you cancer.

Were they dressed like Isis terrorists when they said that?:D

Bunch of morons.

They exist on both sides of every argument.

Wheeliebin30

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Why would I bother digging up links to things you are already well aware of, as you have already discussed them in other threads?

Reasons to believe the water services were to privatised?

We had numerous references to how customers data would be sold (which the govt later pulled citing as an 'error' and the 'privatisation being ultimately envisaged" in the eurostat letter.

Plenty of things to point to privatisation which were always an "error" or "didn't mean what it looks like"

The only thing we have that it would never be privatised was the man reassuring us it wouldn't. Because the man never tells lies or talks through his hoop.



Were they dressed like Isis terrorists when they said that?:D



They exist on both sides of every argument.

So you have no link to your claims FG were going to privatise water.

So you were talking bull****.

At least we have established that and can move on.

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

So you have no link to your claims FG were going to privatise water.

So you were talking bull****.

At least we have established that and can move on.

**farts**

McMurphy

They're all liars....

Former minister who set up Irish Water says 'forces' at work to privatise company

Wheelibein says so.

Now, for fear of derailing the thread any further, I will leave you at it.

Dunno why you bother though, the water charges ship has sailed, and if yourself and seths sentiments are correct "anarchists won".


Now as much as I would like to go around arguing years old points with you on a Sunday afternoon, the sun is shining here in the south east, and alas I must go off with my wife and enjoy a pint or two overlooking the sea.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

**farts**

That says the opposite of what you actually think it says.

It is a letter from the Irish Government to Eurostat effectively saying why did you mention the possibility of privatisation in your last letter when we have made it clear by including a requirement for a plebiscite in the legislation that privatisation is off the table unless the people decide otherwise?

Of all the thin straws that the conspiracy theorists cling onto, that was the thinnest.

Brendan Bendar

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What anarchy was there during the water protests?

Even the Gardai commended the protests in the city centre considering the amount of people in attendance.

A few years on and some people are still trying to demonize those who stood up to FGs water privatisation plans.

It's over lads, move on.

Not quite in context but on topic, I note that the RTE 1200pm news bulletin suggests that the Gardaí have initiated a criminal enquiry into the posting of an image of a member of the Gardaí on Facebook after Frederick St.

Looks like the keystones have learned big from Jobstown and are going after the spongs who try to go after serving Gardaí and their families on social media.

Hopefully they will succeed and out these nults and that they do time for those despicable tactics.

Jobbo might have been a Phyrric victory for Murphy and the bullhorn brigade, looks like the keystones are much better prepared now, and not before its time.

blanch152

It has taken a few years but the true nature of the serial protesters in Ireland is slowly been revealed.

The revelations of racial abuse by protesters last week was another low point, quickly followed by the disgusting attempt to intimidate a Garda by revealing his name and address on one of their Facebook pages.

Are there really any decent people out there who want to be associated with these kind of protests? Can the likes of Paul Murphy, Mick Barry, Clare Daly, Mick Wallace, the Shinners and the rest of the politicians who give succour and support to the protesters really continue to do so?

And still there are the usual suspects defending them on here. That doesn't bother me as much, because they are people hiding behind an anonymous profile and you don't know whether they are doing it just to be provocative (there is at least one that produces the same stock of links and gifs about the government no matter the subject, and I am convinced s/he has no interest in genuine debate, just in upsetting people). But the politicians, have they no decency?

Brendan Bendar

blanch152 wrote: »

It has taken a few years but the true nature of the serial protesters in Ireland is slowly been revealed.

The revelations of racial abuse by protesters last week was another low point, quickly followed by the disgusting attempt to intimidate a Garda by revealing his name and address on one of their Facebook pages.

Are there really any decent people out there who want to be associated with these kind of protests? Can the likes of Paul Murphy, Mick Barry, Clare Daly, Mick Wallace, the Shinners and the rest of the politicians who give succour and support to the protesters really continue to do so?

And still there are the usual suspects defending them on here. That doesn't bother me as much, because they are people hiding behind an anonymous profile and you don't know whether they are doing it just to be provocative (there is at least one that produces the same stock of links and gifs about the government no matter the subject, and I am convinced s/he has no interest in genuine debate, just in upsetting people). But the politicians, have they no decency?

Quite correct B.

A few things I noticed is that Murphy and the rest of the bullhorn brigade have been’ fairly absent’ from the front lines of engagement in this ‘campaign’ .

They would seem to prefer to stoke things up from a ..what’s the military term..a remote location?

As I write I hear Horan bleating about balaclavas on Marion Finucane but not balancing it with the activities of a number of those who attended the ‘eviction’ and the follow up activities.

blanch152

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Quite correct B.

A few things I noticed is that Murphy and the rest of the bullhorn brigade have been’ fairly absent’ from the front lines of engagement in this ‘campaign’ .

They would seem to prefer to stoke things up from a ..what’s the military term..a remote location?

As I write I hear Horan bleating about balaclavas on Marion Finucane but not balancing it with the activities of a number of those who attended the ‘eviction’ and the follow up activities.

The lack of common decency among some of our political representatives is staggering. A little bit of respect for the difficult job the Gardai have to do wouldn't go astray.

sexmag

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The protesters are very interested in finding out the background of Gardai. I would be interested to find out whether some of the protesters come from families who own property which is empty a lot of the time, like holiday homes.

Or maybe some of them have parents who are landlords, or have property abroad. It would be a bit hypocritical if this turned out to be the case, and I don't think they would appreciate their holiday homes being invaded by a mob.

That would be similar to Asia argento being outed for statutory rape and derailing the #metoo movement

P_1

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Hold on.

You just ranted that waters are getting housed for free?

Are these waters living in misery?

What mates?

Who are you referring too?

I don’t understand your point.

We have 2 distinct groups of parasites that are causing the rest of us unneeded grief.

Parasite A: People who use the dole as a way of life, who have never contributed an iota of effort to benefit their community or wider society.

Parasite B: The wealthy elite. People who are slum landlords. People who pay minimum wage and offer zero hour contracts. Vulture funds. Lately Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fail, the leaders of SIPTU

hatrickpatrick

DChancer wrote: »

A free forever home is not a right, nobody has the right to demand that "someone else pay for all my stuff"!

Why do we have a right to demand free healthcare and free public education, then? Who decides which rights are legitimate and which ones are not? Should all healthcare and education be private, and therefore if someone can't afford it well tough sh!t, they can die of treatable cancer while their kids never learn to read and write?

I know you don't agree with the above statements. I'm making them to illustrate how absurd it is that you're making absolutist statements about something else essential for living not being a right, when I'm pretty sure you'll readily agree that healthcare and education are, indeed, rights which are provided for by the state for those who can't afford them.

Wheeliebin30

P_1 wrote: »

We have 2 distinct groups of parasites that are causing the rest of us unneeded grief.

Parasite A: People who use the dole as a way of life, who have never contributed an iota of effort to benefit their community or wider society.

Parasite B: The wealthy elite. People who are slum landlords. People who pay minimum wage and offer zero hour contracts. Vulture funds. Lately Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fail, the leaders of SIPTU

What wage do you propose for everyone seems you don’t think there should be a minimum?

I presume without a minimum wage everyone is on the same wage.

hatrickpatrick

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Because it was 20 times cheaper to build back then.

Is that corrected for inflation? And in either case, why can't we tackle those costs today as a democratic society?

Wheeliebin30

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why do we have a right to demand free healthcare and free public education, then? Who decides which rights are legitimate and which ones are not? Should all healthcare and education be private, and therefore if someone can't afford it well tough sh!t, they can die of treatable cancer while their kids never learn to read and write?

I know you don't agree with the above statements. I'm making them to illustrate how absurd it is that you're making absolutist statements about something else essential for living not being a right, when I'm pretty sure you'll readily agree that healthcare and education are, indeed, rights which are provided for by the state for those who can't afford them.

In an ideal world everything would be free.

Is there s country in the world where this exists?

Unfortunately things have to be paid for.

P_1

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

What wage do you propose for everyone seems you don’t think there should be a minimum?

I presume without a minimum wage everyone is on the same wage.

I'd propose a living wage as opposed to a minimum.

hatrickpatrick

seamus wrote: »

How much do you think it costs to throw up a box with 3 rooms, brick walls, no insulation, electricity, toilets or running water? **** all.

You would rather live on the street than accept something built to 1930s standards.

Speak for yourself. I'm pretty sure most people who are currently sleeping in doorways on Grafton Street at night would much rather be sleeping under a roof and four walls. As for the no electricity, toilets or running water comment, that's total bullsh!t. Council housing had and currently has all of these things. You are aware that the vast majority of houses in Crumlin and Drimnagh were built directly for Dublin Corporation by Crampton, right? Are you suggesting that houses in Crumlin have no plumbing or running water? Have you ever been inside one?

Your hyperbolic comments are absolutely ridiculous. We built social housing in the past and we don't build it now, because our political establishment has become ideologically opposed to it. That's the only reason.

hatrickpatrick

Hurrache wrote: »

Take Frederick House for example. If that was renovated to current standards and rented out, how many people do you think would afford to rent or buy such a place? It's not going to do anything for those on housing lists.

But what if it was demolished and replaced with a four or five storey apartment building?

hatrickpatrick

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

So your solution is to give me and every other citizen a free house? How in the hell does that work? What pays for it?

No, it isn't. It's to provide publicly subsidised basic housing for anyone who needs it, with luxury housing being an optional and expensive upgrade. Same as education, same as healthcare, etc. Why is it ok for the taxpayer to pay for those things, and not for public housing as well? Or are you suggesting that we also abolish public healthcare and public education?

Please tell me specifically why housing, which is every bit as much a "need" as healthcare and education, should be treated different to those other two services when it comes to public funding. Nobody has so far managed to justify making a distinction between the two.

It didnt solve anything, it created some absolute hell hole no-go areas around the country with generational poverty & crime.

So Stephen's Green is a hell hole no-go area? Bishop Street is a hell hole no-go area? Drimnagh is a hell hole no-go area? Pearse Street is a hell hole no-go area?

The failures you describe happened when we shipped people out of the city and into concentrated ghettoes. The social housing which is integrated into the city rather than being crammed together with nothing else, has not been a failure. If it had, we'd be demolshing the Cuffe Street and Mercer Street flats and replacing them with private accommodation which nobody other than Google employees could afford, but we're not. And have you ever felt unsafe while walking past either of these developments either during the day or at night, while walking from Stephen's Green to Camden Street? You'd be more likely to be accosted by some drunken douchebag on their way home from Coppers than one of the residents of Cuffe St or Mercer St. And that's one example.

Ironically, this "move everyone other than the highest paid individuals out of the city and into the suburbs" attitude on display in this thread is what creates and created hell hole no go areas in the past. So maybe let's build social housing in urban areas where it belongs, and not repeat the mistakes we made before?

I've been suggesting mixed-use developments this whole time, not just developments where the people with the most social problems are crammed together. In fact, if you read my posts, I've been talking about the need to expand the definition of social housing well beyond this.

Hence spending 25 odd million trying to "regenerate" dolphins barn.

Dolphin's Barn is not being regenerated because of social problems, it's being regenerated because the buildings are falling apart. Dolphin House and Teresa's Gardens are among the developments which were built by Simms in the final years of his career when his budget had been obliterated but the number of units demanded by the council had not. So obviously the quality suffered. That's why Seagull House across the road from Dolphin House is not being renovated, and that's why the much older Oliver Bond doesn't need to be renovated either.

It didn't work for the soviets, and it won't work here, comrade.

Is there a law similar to Godwin's Law for those who suggest that providing publicly subsidised essential services is akin to communism? Christ almighty.

hatrickpatrick

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

All of it.

So please explain how. Do you think women would have got the vote if they'd simply asked nicely for it? :rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick

Amirani wrote: »

Who decides who gets those homes?

Why does someone on a council housing list deserve to live here more than a nurse working nearby in the Mater hospital who earns slightly too much to be eligible for social housing?

I've been talking this entire time about expanding the definition of social housing.

You're not getting my argument. I'm not suggesting building publicly subsidised housing for a small subset of the population, I'm suggesting building broad public housing so that accommodation isn't a bidding war. It's not just about housing those who can't afford anything, it's also about bringing down prices across the board so that average peoples' rents are far lower than they are currently.

Brendan Bendar

Hmmm... I dectect a drift from the core topic under discussion.

Anyway ..while I’m here...as the Guardian might say, whilst looking for funds,
I am encouraged by Drew Harris’s initial tenure as Commissioner, handled the ‘balaclava’ debate well, and seems to have done the right thing trying out the nults who use social media to by initiating criminal investigation.

The NFL have a grading system for draft picks.

I’d give the lad B+

Brendan Bendar

Jeez... who lifted that slate!!

hatrickpatrick

Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »

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

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

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

Ok, we were at cross purposes here. You were referring specifically to the eviction of the protesters on Frederick St, I was referring broadly to the current issue of sky-high rents and people being evicted if they can't pay for them, and asking why it was legitimate for people to demand government intervention to limit evictions and rent increases back in the 1800s, but not today, when we have a similar problem.

I wasn't comparing the eviction of the Frederick St protesters to the evictions of the 1800s, I was comparing the general situation of landlords charging extortionate rents and evicting people who can't pay them, to the same general situation of the 1800s - back then, people protested for and eventually got government intervention to stop this from happening. What I'm asking is, why was this ok back then but not today?

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

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

A massive rally outside the Dail would achieve absolutely nothing without extra pressure being applied, but I totally agree we need a rally. What are we protesting for, though? Do you agree with the principles of demanding Fair Rent and Fixity of Tenure, just like the Land League of the late 1800s did?

Lastly, when I was commenting here a few days ago I wasn't aware that the protesters had done an Eirigí on this and blocked city centre traffic on O'Connell bridge for several hours, which I'm sure is what you're referring to here.

Let me just say this as clearly as possible: I 100% do not, and never will, support protesting measures which deliberately inconvenience innocent people that have no connection to this. It's bullsh!t, it's unfair, it's totally counter productive in the resentment and message it generates from people who might otherwise become supporters, and on top of all that it's just an absolute dick move.

As far as I'm concerned, that does not and never will constitute a legitimate form of peaceful protest. Targeting random folks who have no connection to those exacerbating the housing crisis is moronic, and the statements justifying this are equally moronic. I have no problem condemning this kind of militancy and I never will have.

hatrickpatrick

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

In an ideal world everything would be free.

Is there s country in the world where this exists?

Unfortunately things have to be paid for.

You haven't answered my question. And I never claimed that everything should be free.

Can you actually answer my question? Do you approve of the fact that we have public healthcare and public education, or not? Should the paradigm be "pay for your cancer treatment or die of it", or "pay for your child's education or do it yourself at home to the best of your ability?"

Assuming you do in fact agree with the provision of publicly funded healthcare and education, which most people in Ireland (even those to the right of centre) do - explain specifically why housing, which is also a basic need, shouldn't be bracketed into the same category, of things which should be provided publicly at affordable levels rather than left to the mercy of the private markets.

What makes it different to education or healthcare? Be specific.

P_1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No, it isn't. It's to provide publicly subsidised basic housing for anyone who needs it, with luxury housing being an optional and expensive upgrade. Same as education, same as healthcare, etc. Why is it ok for the taxpayer to pay for those things, and not for public housing as well? Or are you suggesting that we also abolish public healthcare and public education?

Please tell me specifically why housing, which is every bit as much a "need" as healthcare and education, should be treated different to those other two services when it comes to public funding. Nobody has so far managed to justify making a distinction between the two.



So Stephen's Green is a hell hole no-go area? Bishop Street is a hell hole no-go area? Drimnagh is a hell hole no-go area? Pearse Street is a hell hole no-go area?

The failures you describe happened when we shipped people out of the city and into concentrated ghettoes. The social housing which is integrated into the city rather than being crammed together with nothing else, has not been a failure. If it had, we'd be demolshing the Cuffe Street and Mercer Street flats and replacing them with private accommodation which nobody other than Google employees could afford, but we're not. And have you ever felt unsafe while walking past either of these developments either during the day or at night, while walking from Stephen's Green to Camden Street? You'd be more likely to be accosted by some drunken douchebag on their way home from Coppers than one of the residents of Cuffe St or Mercer St. And that's one example.

Ironically, this "move everyone other than the highest paid individuals out of the city and into the suburbs" attitude on display in this thread is what creates and created hell hole no go areas in the past. So maybe let's build social housing in urban areas where it belongs, and not repeat the mistakes we made before?

I've been suggesting mixed-use developments this whole time, not just developments where the people with the most social problems are crammed together. In fact, if you read my posts, I've been talking about the need to expand the definition of social housing well beyond this.



Dolphin's Barn is not being regenerated because of social problems, it's being regenerated because the buildings are falling apart. Dolphin House and Teresa's Gardens are among the developments which were built by Simms in the final years of his career when his budget had been obliterated but the number of units demanded by the council had not. So obviously the quality suffered. That's why Seagull House across the road from Dolphin House is not being renovated, and that's why the much older Oliver Bond doesn't need to be renovated either.



Is there a law similar to Godwin's Law for those who suggest that providing publicly subsidised essential services is akin to communism? Christ almighty.

Ok I'd agree with that to an extent.

If you're working and paying into the system but are earning below a certain threshold then yes you deserve a subsidised home in the city.

If you're not contributing to society then sorry pal feck off into the arsehoole of nowhere

hatrickpatrick

P_1 wrote: »

Ok I'd agree with that to an extent.

If you're working and paying into the system but are earning below a certain threshold then yes you deserve a subsidised home in the city.

If you're not contributing to society then sorry pal feck off into the arsehoole of nowhere

So you do in fact agree with the idea that the free market shouldn't dictate everything when it comes to housing. But there are people here who genuinely do believe that it should be a merciless profit-centered thing, and they're refusing to answer the comparison with healthcare and education - I believe because they realise that the argument for property as an asset falls apart when you compare it to either of these other categories.

P_1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you do in fact agree with the idea that the free market shouldn't dictate everything when it comes to housing. But there are people here who genuinely do believe that it should be a merciless profit-centered thing, and they're refusing to answer the comparison with healthcare and education - I believe because they realise that the argument for property as an asset falls apart when you compare it to either of these other categories.

I agree completely however I do get annoyed when I see people who dont contribute get looked after ahead of those who do.

It's a bloody grey area and I'm sick to death of people viewing it in black and white terms

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Speak for yourself. I'm pretty sure most people who are currently sleeping in doorways on Grafton Street at night would much rather be sleeping under a roof and four walls. As for the no electricity, toilets or running water comment, that's total bullsh!t. Council housing had and currently has all of these things. You are aware that the vast majority of houses in Crumlin and Drimnagh were built directly for Dublin Corporation by Crampton, right? Are you suggesting that houses in Crumlin have no plumbing or running water? Have you ever been inside one?

Your hyperbolic comments are absolutely ridiculous. We built social housing in the past and we don't build it now, because our political establishment has become ideologically opposed to it. That's the only reason.

Some (but not all) of those people who are currently sleeping in doorways on Grafton Street at night did have a roof and four walls to sleep under. Their own behaviour brought them to where they are.

There was one well-documented case of someone who ended up on the streets despite inheriting two houses. Simplistic statements like yours don't help.

Captain Obvious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No, it isn't. It's to provide publicly subsidised basic housing for anyone who needs it, with luxury housing being an optional and expensive upgrade. Same as education, same as healthcare, etc. Why is it ok for the taxpayer to pay for those things, and not for public housing as well? Or are you suggesting that we also abolish public healthcare and public education?

Please tell me specifically why housing, which is every bit as much a "need" as healthcare and education, should be treated different to those other two services when it comes to public funding. Nobody has so far managed to justify making a distinction between the two.

Depends on wether you are talking about renting public housing or handing it over.

davo10

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The water protests worked, they were fairly successful imo - they forced FGs hand in suspending them, the rest is history.
.

The protest against water charges gained traction because water charges effected everyone. But even with that, many were repulsed at the site of Paul Murphy and the protestors trapping two women in a car.

These protests are having the opposite effect on the public, many people are either uningaged because it has nothing to do with them and does not effect them in an way, or they are actually appalled by the site of students occupying a private property owned by someone who has no history of ever doing anything wrong.

The protesters would do well to remember that Ireland has one of the highest percentage of property ownership in the world. We have a long history of defending our land and property from invaders, both colonial and domestic. Irish people do not like their land/property being "invaded" by banks, the State (CPO's) nor soppy haired students.

The protesters misjudged public sentiment on this, if it hadn't been for the balaclavas, this story would have been dead on the day it happened.

Brendan Bendar

davo10 wrote: »

The protest against water charges gained traction because water charges effected everyone. But even with that, many were repulsed at the site of Paul Murphy and the protestors trapping two women in a car.

These protests are having the opposite effect on the public, many people are either uningaged because it has nothing to do with them and does not effect them in an way, or they are actually appalled by the site of students occupying a private property owned by someone who has no history of ever doing anything wrong.

The protesters would do well to remember that Ireland has one of the highest percentage of property ownership in the world. We have a long history of defending our land and property from invaders, both colonial and domestic. Irish people do not like their land/property being "invaded" by banks, the State (CPO's) nor soppy haired students.

The protesters misjudged public sentiment on this, if it hadn't been for the balaclavas, this story would have been dead on the day it happened.

Correct, the water charges failed because the public didn’t understand that the income base needed to be broadened.

That you can’t expect the same people to to pay for everything.

The set up was disasterous, the lead in was disasterous.

Very poor understanding of public opinion by FG.

Loves_lorries

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Correct, the water charges failed because the public didn’t understand that the income base needed to be broadened.

That you can’t expect the same people to to pay for everything.

The set up was disasterous, the lead in was disasterous.

Very poor understanding of public opinion by FG.

Unless you are unemployed, being opposed to water charges made no rational sense, working tax payers will now have to cough up more.

davo10

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Correct, the water charges failed because the public didn’t understand that the income base needed to be broadened.

That you can’t expect the same people to to pay for everything.

The set up was disasterous, the lead in was disasterous.

Very poor understanding of public opinion by FG.

True, a prime example of an organisational and PR disaster. The point the Government failed to get across is that the water system is crumbling after nearly 100 years of use, yet now there is no money to fix it. But, the PR by the protesters was good (the trapping of the two women aside).

These take back the city protesters have said absolutely nothing which is going to arouse public sympathy for their cause. In fact, to many they got what they deserved when removed from the property.

If they want public support, they have to arouse sympathy for their cause/plight. Having soppy haired students with designer stubble, no housing the homeless element to their protest is just about the worst PR you could have.

Have you ever met any land owner who was ever happy with a CPO to build a new road, widen a road or put in a foot path? I certainly haven't, CPOs are detested because the state is effectively taking your land without your agreement, usually at a reduced price. Yet here we have these protesters arguing that the state should take private property off a citizen with a CPO, how do you expect to get public support for that? If anything the populace will say, what right does anyone have to compulsorily buy that house just because a couple of students occupied it?

PR disaster.