The Frederick St protest and reaction

Graces7

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

Why please does this emotive word, "deserve" keep being used?

Housing, shelter , is a basic need and nothing to do with deserving.

And the equally emotive "contributing to society".

That has nothing to do with "deserving" either.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

The whole concept of a 'minimum' standard of living is that you don't fall below it regardless of behaviour - and if the behaviour involved is criminal in nature this also applies. Would you agree or disagree that sleeping in a prison cell - locked up, limited in visitation, grub etc - but still inside a heated building with protection from the elements - is a better standard of living than sleeping outside in a doorway or moving from hostel to hostel every night?

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.

As I've said, "ending up on the streets" is never a "deserved" outcome, because as a society we long ago decided that there is a minimum standard of living that every citizen is entitled to as a birthright, and that includes having somewhere indoors to sleep. Have you ever genuinely walked past someone curled up in a doorway shivering from the cold and thought "meh, that person probable did something to deserve it"? I'm sure there are some extreme right wingers with that sort of fundamental lack of empathy, but there's no way it's nearly as high as it tends to appear in internet debates.

hatrickpatrick

Captain Obvious wrote: »

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

I'm always talking about renting it, to be honest. Taking badly needed public land out of public ownership, either by selling it to tenants or selling portions of it to developers in exchange for building the rest as social housing - is lunacy.

hatrickpatrick

Loves_lorries wrote: »

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

There were plenty of reasons for employed people to oppose them which I'll outline if you like, but do you feel the same about health and education? Should both be paid for by the end-user and not by the taxpayer generally?

just to say something about the water charges protests -- like most people, I was in favour of water charges, but i can see why some people had a problem with them.

If you were earning the average (or even the median) wage or higher, you probably didn't have much of a personal issue with paying for water charges.

However, if you were a single person dependant upon social welfare (lets say €10k household income per year), and your annual charge came to €300, that's an overnight reduction in your household income of 3%.

If *anyone* in this country had their annual income slashed by 3% in a time of economic recovery, there would be people on the streets. We saw a similarly enormous public backlash, hysteria perhaps, over the pension contribution for civil servants.

Water charges might have been a good idea for those of us who could afford to pay it. The average worker would have easily been able to afford it. But if you're talking about an annual, overnight reduction in your household income by 3% or higher, well that's a different story.

There probably should have been a poverty-proofing means test built into the charges from the very beginning. That's just one of multiple ways in which the Government managed to fcuk it up.

This has got to be a pi** take

“At Take Back The City - Dublin we've been successfully occupying buildings now for 39 days - almost 6 weeks!

In the last few weeks we've seen solidarity actions & rallies in Waterford, Cork & Galway. It's time for the movement to grow. This is why we're running a training session so people can learn from our experience, share their own experiences, and plan for the coming months.

We will be doing practical sessions on Tuesday, giving you & your groups the skills to get crackn on

1) Planning & Defending an Occupation
2) Anti-Eviction Defense & Community Mobilising”

https://www.facebook.com/events/244932502884311/

P_1

Graces7 wrote: »

Why please does this emotive word, "deserve" keep being used?

Housing, shelter , is a basic need and nothing to do with deserving.

And the equally emotive "contributing to society".

That has nothing to do with "deserving" either.

Housing is a right. Housing in a premium location is not.

Drop the Helen Lovejoy argument. Its tiresome

sexmag

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This has got to be a pi** take

“At Take Back The City - Dublin we've been successfully occupying buildings now for 39 days - almost 6 weeks!

In the last few weeks we've seen solidarity actions & rallies in Waterford, Cork & Galway. It's time for the movement to grow. This is why we're running a training session so people can learn from our experience, share their own experiences, and plan for the coming months.

We will be doing practical sessions on Tuesday, giving you & your groups the skills to get crackn on

1) Planning & Defending an Occupation
2) Anti-Eviction Defense & Community Mobilising”

https://www.facebook.com/events/244932502884311/

Pretty sure it's illegal to teach people how to be criminals

tayto lover

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.

I think it was only going to be one of the two, Water or Property Tax.
Had the Water come first then the people would have protest against the Property Tax.
As you said the same people are fed up paying all the taxes. I would have preferred to protest against the Property Tax.

blanch152

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

just to say something about the water charges protests -- like most people, I was in favour of water charges, but i can see why some people had a problem with them.

If you were earning the average (or even the median) wage or higher, you probably didn't have much of a personal issue with paying for water charges.

However, if you were a single person dependant upon social welfare (lets say €10k household income per year), and your annual charge came to €300, that's an overnight reduction in your household income of 3%.

If *anyone* in this country had their annual income slashed by 3% in a time of economic recovery, there would be people on the streets. We saw a similarly enormous public backlash, hysteria perhaps, over the pension contribution for civil servants.

Water charges might have been a good idea for those of us who could afford to pay it. The average worker would have easily been able to afford it. But if you're talking about an annual, overnight reduction in your household income by 3% or higher, well that's a different story.

There probably should have been a poverty-proofing means test built into the charges from the very beginning. That's just one of multiple ways in which the Government managed to fcuk it up.

There are plenty of public servants who saw their pay cut and the pension levy introduced during the period 2008-2010 by a multiple of 3% and still haven't had it restored.

Brendan Bendar

As I see it, the water charges failed because for some reason the presence of a meter outside ones residence seemed to smack of ‘someone looking at you’ .

The fact that that someone was the State seemed to rile up a certain coterie who didn’t,it seemed, like the State looking at them and their activities.
Why this was so is a matter for conjecture.

The Bullhorn Brigade tapped into this feeling, and harnessed a badly run Govt campaign into a national opposition movement. They gave a reason for the nults and spongs to get up early, something they would never do for legitimate employment.

The opposers had no interest in the big picture, those running the campaign had no interest other than promoting their own views.

The end result will be that water issues will stagnate and be years behind time.


Witness the issues we had with the drought this year.

DebDynamite

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.

Because by providing free education and healthcare, we are raising a healthy, educated future workforce, who will then be able to provide a home for their own families. Teach a man to fish and all that...

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

the pension levy introduced during the period 2008-2010 by a multiple of 3% and still haven't had it restored.

By 'a multiple of 3%', do you mean 5%?

I included the pension levy in my post, and what many would regard as the hysterical overreaction to it.

knipex

Graces7 wrote: »

Why please does this emotive word, "deserve" keep being used?

Housing, shelter , is a basic need and nothing to do with deserving.

And the equally emotive "contributing to society".

That has nothing to do with "deserving" either.

Rights rights tight,, that all we hear.

What about responsibilities and obligations..

If you abandon all responsibilities and obligations to the state then your "rights" should also go.

It should be, has to be a two way street.

And since when does "shelter" equate to the home of your choice in the area of your choice.

The people screaming for a right to housing in the constitution need to look further at the long term consequences of that "right".

Why would anyone work and save to get a mortgage and then work and sacrifice to pay a mortgage when they have a "right" to the same house from the state with none of the sacrifice..

All these "rights" have to be paid for, normally by the same people who actually get no or the least benefit from these same "rights".

Any people wonder why there is a growing backlash against the hard left and a growing swing to the far right.

The left, the PC brigade and in particular the hard left have, over the last 10 years, done more to reverse the benefits of the last 50 years and drive division, distaste and unrest and mistrust in society than any other group and the rise of the hard right (an even more evil manifestation), can (at least in part) be attributed to their actions..

NasserShammaz

knipex wrote: »

Rights rights tight,, that all we hear.

What about responsibilities and obligations..

If you abandon all responsibilities and obligations to the state then your "rights" should also go.

It should be, has to be a two way street.

And since when does "shelter" equate to the home of your choice in the area of your choice.

The people screaming for a right to housing in the constitution need to look further at the long term consequences of that "right".

Why would anyone work and save to get a mortgage and then work and sacrifice to pay a mortgage when they have a "right" to the same house from the state with none of the sacrifice..

All these "rights" have to be paid for, normally by the same people who actually get no or the least benefit from these same "rights".

Any people wonder why there is a growing backlash against the hard left and a growing swing to the far right.

The left, the PC brigade and in particular the hard left have, over the last 10 years, done more to reverse the benefits of the last 50 years and drive division, distaste and unrest and mistrust in society than any other group and the rise of the hard right (an even more evil manifestation), can (at least in part) be attributed to their actions..

Can't argue with anything here, nail on the head.

The final insult is that even with all the help and support they just piss it away anyway and only contrive to perpetuate the slow bleeding of resources into the next generation, their own children.

P_1

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

As I see it, the water charges failed because for some reason the presence of a meter outside ones residence seemed to smack of ‘someone looking at you’ .

The fact that that someone was the State seemed to rile up a certain coterie who didn’t,it seemed, like the State looking at them and their activities.
Why this was so is a matter for conjecture.

The Bullhorn Brigade tapped into this feeling, and harnessed a badly run Govt campaign into a national opposition movement. They gave a reason for the nults and spongs to get up early, something they would never do for legitimate employment.

The opposers had no interest in the big picture, those running the campaign had no interest other than promoting their own views.

The end result will be that water issues will stagnate and be years behind time.


Witness the issues we had with the drought this year.

To be honest it was more down to the fact the tax would be paid to a company owned by Dennis O'Brien.

I'd have no issues paying water taxes to a government agency, massive issues paying to a company owned by that corrupt prick.

dav3

knipex wrote: »

Rights rights tight,, that all we hear.

What about responsibilities and obligations..

If you abandon all responsibilities and obligations to the state then your "rights" should also go.

It should be, has to be a two way street.

And since when does "shelter" equate to the home of your choice in the area of your choice.

The people screaming for a right to housing in the constitution need to look further at the long term consequences of that "right".

Why would anyone work and save to get a mortgage and then work and sacrifice to pay a mortgage when they have a "right" to the same house from the state with none of the sacrifice..

All these "rights" have to be paid for, normally by the same people who actually get no or the least benefit from these same "rights".

Any people wonder why there is a growing backlash against the hard left and a growing swing to the far right.

The left, the PC brigade and in particular the hard left have, over the last 10 years, done more to reverse the benefits of the last 50 years and drive division, distaste and unrest and mistrust in society than any other group and the rise of the hard right (an even more evil manifestation), can (at least in part) be attributed to their actions..

Phew, just as well we've had a right-wing government for the past 50 years. Imagine if we'd had a left-wing government with all their fancy "rights".

With the behaviour of the right-wing governments towards the working class, it's no wonder this country has been swinging more and more left over the past half century.

Currently the government are sticking their fingers in their ears with the hope that the housing and health crises will just go away.

Brendan Bendar

P_1 wrote: »

To be honest it was more down to the fact the tax would be paid to a company owned by Dennis O'Brien.

I'd have no issues paying water taxes to a government agency, massive issues paying to a company owned by that corrupt prick.

Yes, agree, that was a major part of the reason for the opposition.

zapitastas

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

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.

It is already leaked that the person in charge is an ex Ulster defense regiment member from Antrim

Iodine1

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

As I see it, the water charges failed because for some reason the presence of a meter outside ones residence seemed to smack of ‘someone looking at you’ .

The fact that that someone was the State seemed to rile up a certain coterie who didn’t,it seemed, like the State looking at them and their activities.
Why this was so is a matter for conjecture.

The Bullhorn Brigade tapped into this feeling, and harnessed a badly run Govt campaign into a national opposition movement. They gave a reason for the nults and spongs to get up early, something they would never do for legitimate employment.

The opposers had no interest in the big picture, those running the campaign had no interest other than promoting their own views.

The end result will be that water issues will stagnate and be years behind time.


Witness the issues we had with the drought this year.

+1. Also the majority paid but were shouted down by the rabble and a weak FF.

tayto lover

DebDynamite wrote: »

Because by providing free education and healthcare, we are raising a healthy, educated future workforce, who will then be able to provide a home for their own families. Teach a man to fish and all that...

Except that's it's not free. I took out loads of Credit Union loans to put my kids through college.

P_1

zapitastas wrote: »

It is already leaked that the person in charge is an ex Ulster defense regiment member from Antrim

Twitter or Facebook?

tayto lover

zapitastas wrote: »

It is already leaked that the person in charge is an ex Ulster defense regiment member from Antrim

Was he not a mass murderer from Eastern Europe?:p

McMurphy

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.

.

You may find this hard to believe, but I wholeheartedly agree with you, especially this part.

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

the balaclavas (and I'm not talking about the coppers ones) was a PR disaster for the gards IMO.

To be clear, I don't believe them, but the talk all over social media (Twitter/Facebook etc) is that the masked men were UDA/UVF hoodlums, farcical - by all means, but this is my point that it was all bad optics.

Someone in the higher echelons of the Gardai screwed up spectaculary when they sanctioned the go ahead that our police accompanied paramilitary style heavys, you said it yourself, the story would prob have been forgotten now, only for them.

Similarities with the water protests and how they grew in numbers with each controversy that passed.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Then I'll ask you where water charges ended up?

davo10

Water charge protests grew in numbers because it was a charge that effected every house hold. This is not, in fact it effects a tiny percentage of the population. At the next removal of protesters, it may not even matter if the security company wear balaclavas, we will have seen the images already and if the protesters don't get public support, the pictures will only matter to the same people as it did last week, which it seems now, is not that many people.

If the LPT had to go up for everyone in Dublin to provide funds to Dublin CoCo to buy these buildings, a lot of working class people may well protest that increase.

P_1

davo10 wrote: »

Water charge protests grew in numbers because it was a charge that effected every house hold. This is not, in fact it effects a tiny percentage of the population. At the next removal of protesters, it may not even matter if the security company wear balaclavas, we will have seen the images already and if the protesters don't get public support, the pictures will only matter to the same people as it did last week, which it seems now, is not that many people.

To be honest it is an issue we should all be protesting. If it costs less to live in London than it does in Dublin something is seriously wrong

McMurphy

davo10 wrote: »

Water charge protests grew in numbers because it was a charge that effected every house hold. This is not, in fact it effects a tiny percentage of the population. At the next removal of protesters, it may not even matter if the security company wear balaclavas, we will have seen the images already and if the protesters don't get public support, the pictures will only matter to the same people as it did last week, which it seems now, is not that many people.

This thread and other online resources have been hopping since, in fact I even heard the story mentioned on the radio news headlines in the car earlier (about 2ish)

You said it yourself, it would have been dead and buried but for the balaclavas.

The loyalist paramilitaries rumour - no matter how ludicrous or not - has started already and has become a focal point on the web.

So I repeat, whoever the dumb schmuck was in the Gardai hierarchy that thought it was a good idea to have our lads basically escort a van load of (the locals are saying loyalists ted) was going to sit well with a lot of the general public should be put on bogs and bin duties for the next foreseeable.

The head of the policing authority and Taoiseach of the country are even questioning the optics of it for Christ sake.

dxhound2005

The next time it happens a woman Garda will go to the address and say to the nice people there, I have a court order saying that you have to leave. And they will all just walk out, saying thank you for being so polite about it.

davo10

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

This thread and other online resources have been hopping since, in fact I even heard the story mentioned on the radio news headlines in the car earlier (about 2ish)

You said it yourself, it would have been dead and buried but for the balaclavas.

The loyalist paramilitaries rumour - no matter how ludicrous or not - has started already and has become a focal point on the web.

So I repeat, whoever the dumb schmuck was in the Gardai hierarchy that thought it was a good idea to have our lads basically escort a van load of (the locals are saying loyalists ted) was going to sit well with a lot of the general public should be put on bogs and bin duties for the next foreseeable.

The head of the policing authority and Taoiseach of the country are even questioning the optics of it for Christ sake.

But now we have all seen it, and the posts on social media actually validate to most people, the gaurds and security personnel hiding their identity. We've all seen it now, we understand why now, we won't care the next time we see it.

The Varadker and head of Gardai had to say that, its political expediency.

P_1

davo10 wrote: »

But now we have all seen it, and the posts on social media actually validate to most people, the gaurds and security personnel hiding their identity. We've all seen it now, we understand why now, we won't care the next time we see it.

The Varadker and head of Gardai had to say that, its political expediency.

I dont think so tbh. People have now been energised by this and when I say people I mean the people who were energised by marriage equality and repealing the 8th, not the water protest tent a mob

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If *anyone* in this country had their annual income slashed by 3% in a time of economic recovery, there would be people on the streets. We saw a similarly enormous public backlash, hysteria perhaps, over the pension contribution for civil servants.

do you have any idea what % pay reduction civil servants took while delivering the services they do to the country before you have your little dig, all the while defending morons acting like thugs for months over a (maximum) 3% charge?

you get more and more ridiculous

McMurphy

davo10 wrote: »

But now we have all seen it, and the posts on social media actually validate to most people, the gaurds and security personnel hiding their identity. We've all seen it now, we understand why now, we won't care the next time we see it.

It's a circular argument now, you're at first admitting that the story wouldn't even be talked about now, but for the balaclavas.

Now you're saying that you have seen from social media the derogatory posts the operation has been garnering.

But you admit that if it wasn't for the balaclava sporting heavies the story wouldn't be talked about now anyway.

So, just to be clear, should private landlords who are possibly hoarding empty properties in the midst of a housing crisis be the target of somesort of mass revolt, on the back of whay happened with the balaclava lads, we can most likely trace it all back to this one incident?



It's a chicken and egg moment that's for sure.

The Varadker and head of Gardai had to say that, its political expediency.

It's also correct, it didn't look great and made things worse, you said so yourself.

davo10

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It's a circular argument now, you're at first admitting that the story wouldn't even be talked about now, but for the balaclavas.

Now you're saying that you have seen from social media the derogatory posts the operation has been garnering.

But you admit that if it wasn't for the balaclava sporting heavies the story wouldn't be talked about now anyway.

So, just to be clear, should private landlords who are possibly hoarding empty properties in the midst of a housing crisis be the target of somesort of mass revolt, on the back of whay happened with the balaclava lads, we can most likely trace it all back to this one incident?



It's a chicken and egg moment that's for sure.

It's also correct, it didn't look great and made things worse, you said so yourself.

No, I'm saying the controversial/emotive issue was the balaclavas, now that we understand why they are wearing them, next time around the general populace will neither be surprised nor outraged, it's now old news. The protesters do not arouse sympathy so a tiny proportion of the population actually care what happens the next time.

P_1

davo10 wrote: »

No, I'm saying the controversial/emotive issue was the balaclavas, now that we understand why they are wearing them, next time around the general populace will neither be surprised nor outraged, it's now old news. The protesters do not arouse sympathy so a tiny proportion of the population actually care what happens the next time.

I don't think so. Normal people are getting involved now. The test will be how many show up for the March on Saturday

Ash.J.Williams

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

The place was cleared quickly enough by the looks of things but this crack of the guards turning up with a couple of lads in balaclavas and an old sh*tbox van is a very unprofessional look.

that's it in a nutshell.

P_1

P_1 wrote: »

I don't think so. Normal people are getting involved now. The test will be how many show up for the March on Saturday

It’ll be interesting to see how many turn up for their lessons in the art of occupation!

McMurphy

davo10 wrote: »

No, I'm saying the controversial/emotive issue was the balaclavas, now that we understand why they are wearing them, next time around the general populace will neither be surprised nor outraged, it's now old news. The protesters do not arouse sympathy so a tiny proportion of the population actually care what happens the next time.

Wait a minute, you're just after saying you seen the comments online about the masked men, and how you understood why they were needed.

In the previous breath you were saying that only for the masked men the story would be dead and buried.

Does that not mean that had the court order have been executed without the masked men, now not be a talking point, and therefore wouldn't have attracted derogatory comments to begin with?

Make up your mind.

I have every sympathy with the landlords who own these properties - but it is my genuine belief that the frederick street incident has did them a disservice.

Tell me I'm wrong if you want, but the PR strategy backfired spectacularly, I can almost guarantee you that the last masked men incident won't be repeated in the lifetime of this govt.

We more than likely won't have long to wait to find out, and if I'm right you'll have to ask yourself why.

P_1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It’ll be interesting to see how many turn up for their lessons in the art of occupation!

Yeah. That's counterproductive nonsense in my eyes. Occupying nama properties is a must better tactic here

McMurphy

P_1 wrote: »

Yeah. That's counterproductive nonsense in my eyes. Occupying nama properties is a must better tactic here

The farmers in Meath were at that craic during the week there, protesting about vulture funds.

No doubt if they keep up with their protesting a van load of paramilitaries will be rocking up with the Gards to sort them out too.

irishgeo

It's time to put some of these protesters back in their box. Facial recognition software is a step too far. The garda is onlydoing their job. If the protesters had a job they might know what it's like.

McMurphy

irishgeo wrote: »

It's time to put some of these protesters back in their box. Facial recognition software is a step too far. The garda is onlydoing their job. If the protesters had a job they might know what it's like.

If you believe this, well then to be quite frank, you're to be pitied.

sexmag

irishgeo wrote: »

It's time to put some of these protesters back in their box. Facial recognition software is a step too far. The garda is onlydoing their job. If the protesters had a job they might know what it's like.

It seriously discredits what they are doing and ads a really sinister side to it.

Also the class on how to occupy and defend a building is madness and borderline criminal.

What I find the funniest is that this movement is for homeless people and not once have they moved a person into these occupied places or mentioned any actual homeless people who they are doing it for

jay0109

I look forward to Una Mullally's opinion piece in the IT condemning this targeting of the Garda, the carrying of a knife and the racist abuse of another Garda by the protestors.

But I won't hold my breath

tayto lover

sexmag wrote: »

It seriously discredits what they are doing and ads a really sinister side to it.

Also the class on how to occupy and defend a building is madness and borderline criminal.

What I find the funniest is that this movement is for homeless people and not once have they moved a person into these occupied places or mentioned any actual homeless people who they are doing it for

It's not about homelessness at all otherwise they would march on the Dail or Council offices and protest outside.
It's about thuggery.

McMurphy

tayto lover wrote: »

It's not about homelessness at all otherwise they would march on the Dail or Council offices and protest outside.
It's about thuggery.

Why? What good would that do?

The politicians and councillors could still just ignore the problem.

Getting back to the subject of the thread though, these protests had actually passed me by until I seen this thread.

Anyway, upon reading up on it, and the background to the Frederick street incident in particular, it would seem that the Gardai have been in constant contact with whomever was occupying the place fora number of weeks.

They would have known from these previous interactions that those inside the premises weren't violent, and were highly unlikely to have been met with violence or disorder had they themselves have been deployed to move them on.

If this is the case, then them arriving in unison with a masked gang of heavies in a scruffy van isn't only unprofessional - it looks all the more sinister.

+1 They left the first house without saying boo, this was the second.

Are they still occupying a house on Belvedere Place?

McMurphy

Gene Kerrigan hits the nail on the head once again.

When democracy wears a black mask

It must be galling to Varadkar and his hapless ministers when a significant number of mostly young people engage in peaceful civil disobedience, questioning official policy.

They're refusing to accept the insane logic of making the few wealthy at the expense of the many, with a vague hope that the excess wealth of the few will somehow trickle down to the rest of us.

They occupied an empty building. A symbolic protest against the pro-property, anti-people policies of the governing cartel, which have wreaked havoc with our people.

When the law got involved, the protesters withdrew. And occupied another empty building.

And the owners sent in paramilitary-style heavies to eject the protesters.

Wearing black outfits, with balaclavas, they stood at ease in front of the building, legs apart, arms clasped behind their backs. This is a military position - "parade rest". The last time I saw that dress style combined with that stance, I was covering an IRA funeral.

Are these masked people ex-soldiers? Which army? Are they ex-IRA? Ex-UDA? They are not hired for their sensitivity.

And, to complete the picture, the 'Public Order Unit' accompanied them, with armoured vests and with batons drawn.

One visually echoing the other - it was difficult to see where the paramilitary-style lads ended and the State forces began.

Drew Harris had to say something. Being the new boy, he had to back his staff. He said gardai were entitled to wear "fire retardant hoods", but it was not correct to do so without helmets.

It was as though the police had committed a fashion faux pas.

Off the record, gardai assured reporters their commissioner was talking nonsense - the POU wore the masks, they claimed, so they wouldn't be abused on "social media".

Ah dear, the poor snowflakes. This is a justification for every garda everywhere wearing a mask, on all occasions.

Police wear masks when there's a genuine belief they may be targeted by violent criminals. To wear them when policing dissent is a tactic designed to demonise that dissent.

Harris knows that serious police officers don't greet dissent with batons. And he'll know when paramilitary-style gentlemen confront dissenters the role of the police is to protect the dissenters, not to literally stand with the paramilitary-style heavies.

That's if you believe in that stuff about democracy, and the consent of the governed.

Brendan Bendar

I wouldn’t take anything that clown writes too seriously .

Personally, I think that all the furore over the hoods stems from the fact that everything went off well, apart from a few protesters acting the bo**o* and physically and verbally attacking the Gardai. No videos of this violence has appeared on social media, as it would show the protesters in their true light, so the protesters are focusing on the Gardai, claiming that they were hiding their identities, when their numbers were clearly visible. The protesters were so cheesed off that they sought fit to detain workers on their homeward journeys by sitting down in the road.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I think that all the furore over the hoods stems from the fact that everything went off well, apart from a few protesters acting the bo**o* and physically and verbally attacking the Gardai. No videos of this violence has appeared on social media, as it would show the protesters in their true light, so the protesters are focusing on the Gardai, claiming that they were hiding their identities, when their numbers were clearly visible. The protesters were so cheesed off that they sought fit to detain workers on their homeward journeys by sitting down in the road.

so what was the real reason for the masks so?