The Frederick St protest and reaction

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The thread has veered off course slightly to focus on yer wan Cash, (this year's bogeyman figure) just as previous shambles and crises before them (Paul Murphy water protests).

Just so people are reminded, the thread was about the illegal occupants of a city premises, and their forced removal from same by masked man, while the guards attended the scene to be impartial observers.

The commissioner has said that not everything was done correctly in this instance, the head of the policing authority has said things weren't done right during this incident either
.

Both The Taoiseach and Justice Minister have said that what happened wasn't a welcoming site, and shouldn't have happened, echoed by other TDs and councillors from all across the political spectrum, including members of both FG/FF.

So the general consensus appears to be (from public figures with a semblance of some actual power or influence) who have broadly voiced their concerns on how this was executed (using paramilitary style men), was thay it shouldn't have happened, and shouldn't be repeated in the future.

Such a forced removal with masked men hasn't been repeated since, which would signal to me that it was a PR disaster for the impartial Gardai, and perhaps the gov't, ( who may or may not have had prior knowledge of it. )

Hurry up with the land bank tax, and empty property tax which would target both speculators and investor's, hoarding property in a housing crisis is as bad as hoarding grain or cereal during a famine.

And for balance, they should also crack down on those shacked up in social housing who are liable to pay what can be considered a tiny contribution towards their renting.

Those who should be paying their contributions towards any LA that's refusing to do so should be facing mandatory deductions to salary/wages/dole whatever.

If they can dream up ways of targeting property owner's via earnings/TCC etc, then those inhabiting state housing shouldn't be too hard to identify and go after either.

But let's all focus on fuppin Paul Murphy, the Ra/UVF or Clown car vagina Cash over there >>>>>>>>

Sheep the fcukin lot of ye, you're all being played like fiddles.

I understood that the squatters left quietly? And that the violence happened outside when some of their supporters attacked the Gardai physically and verbally, leading to a small number of arrests?

You can bet your Barney that if any violence was directed towards the squatters and their supporters that videos of it would have been on social media as it happened.

sexmag

Deleted User wrote: »

I understood that the squatters left quietly? And that the violence happened outside when some of their supporters attacked the Gardai physically and verbally, leading to a small number of arrests?

You can bet your Barney that if any violence was directed towards the squatters and their supporters that videos of it would have been on social media as it happened.

Exactly, i didnt see any videos of people being forceably removed, they all seem to leave quietly without issue which is fair enough, they made their point so from that stand point the occupiers and men in masks have no beef with each other.

The problem was the people on the street who the guards arrested for breaching the peace.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What force was used on the occupants by the men in balaclavas?

You know the way the protesters ignored the high court order instructing them to leave?

Well I could have sworn that I read that the property owner hired some lads to enforce the order?

The illegal occupants were forced from the property.

Is this actually being disputed here?

You mean when he said they should have worn the helmets too? Hardly an indictment.

Well, a report has been ordered, hasn't been repeated since, so bit early to conclude either way.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

I understood that the squatters left quietly? And that the violence happened outside when some of their supporters attacked the Gardai physically and verbally, leading to a small number of arrests?

You can bet your Barney that if any violence was directed towards the squatters and their supporters that videos of it would have been on social media as it happened.

Read above and concentrate what was written, No one said violence was used in removing them, stop wishing I had written something I did not write.

Violence is not required to force someone to comply with a court order.

sexmag

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You know the way the protesters ignored the high court order instructing them to leave?

Well I could have sworn that I read that the property owner hired some lads to enforce the order?

The illegal occupants were forced from the property.

Is this actually being disputed here?





Well, a report has been ordered, hasn't been repeated since, so bit early to conclude either way.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Read above and concentrate what was written, No one said violence was used in removing them, stop wishing I had written something I did not write.

Violence is not required to force someone to comply with a court order.

There fixed your posts for you and left the actual relevant bits. These people are breaking the law and not complying with it so they were made comply with it

McMurphy

sexmag wrote: »

There fixed your posts for you and left the actual relevant bits. These people are breaking the law and not complying with it so they were made comply with it

Sure isn't that what I said to begin with

Which is why there is no need to bring up some imaginary shyte I did not post, about violence or indictments, try and argue with what was written if theirs merit in arguing with it - do so. Shouldn't be difficult.

Being discussed on newstalk now by the way for anyone that's interested.

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You know the way the protesters ignored the high court order instructing them to leave?

Well I could have sworn that I read that the property owner hired some lads to enforce the order?

The illegal occupants were forced from the property.

Is this actually being disputed here?





Well, a report has been ordered, hasn't been repeated since, so bit early to conclude either way.

So no force was used and it's too early to conclude the Gardaí did anything wrong.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So no force was used and it's too early to conclude the Gardaid anything wrong.

As said, I don't believe anyone is arguing that a high court order was enforced or not, dreadfully sorry that I didn't even hint it was violently enforced, but the illegal occupants were forced to go, fact.

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

Activists who were defying a High Court order to vacate 34 North Frederick Street in Dublin city centre were forced out by a group of unidentifiable men.

Seriously, is this really the level of semantics you wish to cling to?

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

As said, I don't believe anyone is arguing that a high court order was enforced or not, dreadfully sorry that I didn't even hint it was violently enforced, but the illegal occupants were forced to go, fact.

Seriously, is this really the level of semantics you wish to cling to?

It's fairly obvious the picture you are trying to paint throughout the thread. So to clarify again, no force was used.

knipex

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You know the way the protesters ignored the high court order instructing them to leave?

Well I could have sworn that I read that the property owner hired some lads to enforce the order?

The illegal occupants were forced from the property.

Is this actually being disputed here?

So let me get this straight.

Your issue is that a properly issued court order was executed (just to clarify in case you get take it incorrectly out I am not implying or suggesting that anyone should have actually been executed) ??


That the protestors should have been told and the court order handed to them with a polite instruction to please leave and when they refused then we all shrug our shoulders and leave them there ??

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's fairly obvious the picture you are trying to paint throughout the thread. So to clarify again, no force was used.

No force was used, the lads in balaclavas didn't force their way into the illegally occupied building, and the high court order wasn't enforced.

If you say so then.

Seth Brundle

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No force was used, the lads in balaclavas didn't force their way into the illegally occupied building, and the high court order wasn't enforced.

If you say so then.

So given your correction, what did the lads in balaclava do wrong and what did the gardai do wrong?

PlaneSpeeking

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No force was used, the lads in balaclavas didn't force their way into the illegally occupied building, and the high court order wasn't enforced.

If you say so then.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between "force" and "enforce".

McMurphy

knipex wrote: »

So let me get this straight.

Your issue is that a properly issued court order was executed (just to clarify in case you get take it incorrectly out I am not implying or suggesting that anyone should have actually been executed) ??


That the protestors should have been told and the court order handed to them with a polite instruction to please leave and when they refused then we all shrug our shoulders and leave them there ??

No, and if you have been following the thread from its earliest days, you will see that my position has been quite clear throughout.

I have no beef with the fact that the protesters were removed, they were illegally occupying a property - period.

I even stated that I understood why the guards in particular were needed at the scene, why they perhaps felt the need to conceal their identities, and the need to introduce legislation that tackles doxxing them.

My beef, and it seems to be shared with thr Taoiseach, the justice minister, the head of the policing authority, and various TDs and Ministers and councillors was the bad optics involved when masked anonymous men get deployed to our streets to enforce court orders.

Most of the right wing landlord supporting/Looney left bleeding heart liberals on this thread will prob be in a bit of a pickle ref my beef.

It's not about picking a side, it's entirely possible to simultaneously not support the actions of the protesters or the manner and who was involved in making them comply with the high court order.

Optics were bad, PR disaster for whoever sanctioned it.

Clarified?

McMurphy

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand the difference between "force" and "enforce".

I'm not sure you've quite gotten to grips with the ignore function, and how it works.

Your posts boasting about who you have on ignore are like a pile on ones sweaty backside, a dose of a constant irritation that no one really needs to hear about

sexmag

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No, and if you have been following the thread from its earliest days, you will see that my position has been quite clear throughout.

I have no beef with the fact that the protesters were removed, they were illegally occupying a property - period.

I even stated that I understood why the guards in particular were needed at the scene, why they perhaps felt the need to conceal their identities, and the need to introduce legislation that tackles doxxing them.

My beef, and it seems to be shared with thr Taoiseach, the justice minister, the head of the policing authority, and various TDs and Ministers and councillors was the bad optics involved when masked anonymous men get deployed to our streets to enforce court orders.

Most of the right wing landlord supporting/Looney left bleeding heart liberals on this thread will prob be in a bit of a pickle ref my beef.

It's not about picking a side, it's entirely possible to simultaneously not support the actions of the protesters or the manner and who was involved in making them comply with the high court order.

Optics were bad, PR disaster for whoever sanctioned it.

Clarified?

As this is a civil matter at the end of the day the property owner was fully entitled to inlist the help of people to ensure the illegal occupiers left their property. If you have an issue with a private citizen inlisting a private company to carry out their request then not much you can do about that to be honest, which is pretty much why the governement and the guards are washing their hands of it, a report will be released detaling a peaceful removal and that will be the end of it ultimately

tayto lover

sexmag wrote: »

As this is a civil matter at the end of the day the property owner was fully entitled to inlist the help of people to ensure the illegal occupiers left their property. If you have an issue with a private citizen inlisting a private company to carry out their request then not much you can do about that to be honest, which is pretty much why the governement and the guards are washing their hands of it, a report will be released detaling a peaceful removal and that will be the end of it ultimately

From what I've heard the occupiers were peaceful and left when told.
Apparently it was the rabble who gathered outside who caused the Garda all the trouble. They wanted trouble and probably traveled to the area to start it.

Potential-Monke

tayto lover wrote: »

Apparently it was the rabble who gathered outside who caused the Garda all the trouble. They wanted trouble and probably traveled to the area to start it.

This. This is what happened. The protestors left peacefully upon presentation of the court order, and the rabble outside caused the trouble. It's always the same. People travel to these social protests just to cause trouble and 'catch out' the Gardaí, and end up posting the worst looking part of a video without what led up to it.

Brendan Bendar

Potential-Monke wrote: »

This. This is what happened. The protestors left peacefully upon presentation of the court order, and the rabble outside caused the trouble. It's always the same. People travel to these social protests just to cause trouble and 'catch out' the Gardaí, and end up posting the worst looking part of a video without what led up to it.

Hmmmmm.... if that’s the case then the Gardaí ‘deserve’ it.

There wouldn’t be a major bunch of folk who do this, answer is identify the lawbreakers,pull those involved in that activity in, charge them, jail them if found guilty, two or three ‘peaceful’ protests later I can safely say the problem would be solved.

It’s a matter of sorting things out, acting on them, not arseboxing like what went on out in Jobstown.

Get in, make sure, cast iron,court case,bang bang, stiff fine,or lock up.

Problem solved....... move on.

Frank Bullitt

When someone says "Housing is a human right", do they mean that someone should have shelter? Or that they should own the place?

hatrickpatrick

Gintonious wrote: »

When someone says "Housing is a human right", do they mean that someone should have shelter? Or that they should own the place?

Personally I believe that social housing should always remain in council ownership for future tenants. Whether this means ongoing rent or whether you could come up with some sort of "lifetime occupancy" arrangement which means you own the house for all intents and purposes, but crucially, once you die or choose to move out, the ownership reverts to the state, so you can't pass it on, give it away, or sell it.

The mass, permanent sell-offs of social housing in the 2000s, both to tenants and to private developers as part of public private partnerships, were among the most moronic policies pursued by the boom-drunken Fianna Fail.

hatrickpatrick

knipex wrote: »

So let me get this straight.

Your issue is that a properly issued court order was executed (just to clarify in case you get take it incorrectly out I am not implying or suggesting that anyone should have actually been executed) ??


That the protestors should have been told and the court order handed to them with a polite instruction to please leave and when they refused then we all shrug our shoulders and leave them there ??

The Gardai should have done it as a matter of law enforcement. The optics of having the Gardai essentially look as if they were siding with and protecting a group of masked, unidentified private operators in a dodgy van were absolutely appalling, and pretty much everyone in the media and political circles has agreed with this. It was a foolish way to do this. If they were in contempt of court, the Gardai could have, and should have, been the ones to enter the property and arrest them. Private security firms are generally regarded as dodgy by the public for various reasons anyway, but the optics of this one were appalling.

Horrendous PR move if nothing else. It shouldn't have happened and most involved seem to now agree that it shouldn't have happened.

facehugger99

Gintonious wrote: »

When someone says "Housing is a human right", do they mean that someone should have shelter? Or that they should own the place?

They mean that someone else should pay for it.

tayto lover

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The Gardai should have done it as a matter of law enforcement. The optics of having the Gardai essentially look as if they were siding with and protecting a group of masked, unidentified private operators in a dodgy van were absolutely appalling, and pretty much everyone in the media and political circles has agreed with this. It was a foolish way to do this. If they were in contempt of court, the Gardai could have, and should have, been the ones to enter the property and arrest them. Private security firms are generally regarded as dodgy by the public for various reasons anyway, but the optics of this one were appalling.

Horrendous PR move if nothing else. It shouldn't have happened and most involved seem to now agree that it shouldn't have happened.

I was told it was a civil matter and the garda don't and can't get involved.
They are there only to prevent a breach of the peace.
When there was a breach of the peace they intervened.

Gintonious

Gintonious wrote: »

When someone says "Housing is a human right", do they mean that someone should have shelter? Or that they should own the place?

Shelter, I'd have thought (or hoped so)

There's absolutely no good reason why local authorities should have sold a single dwelling to council tenants, and I hope that practice ends as soon as possible. If people want a mortgage, let them go and get one privately.

The priority has to be stable accommodation, but home ownership is a totally different issue, and shouldn't be the job of local authorities to look after.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Shelter, I'd have thought (or hoped so)

There's absolutely no good reason why local authorities should have sold a single dwelling to council tenants, and I hope that practice ends as soon as possible. If people want a mortgage, let them go and get one privately.

The priority has to be stable accommodation, but home ownership is a totally different issue, and shouldn't be the job of local authorities to look after.

After all, a stable was good enough for Jesus.

Yeah_Right

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hmmmmm.... if that’s the case then the Gardaí ‘deserve’ it.

There wouldn’t be a major bunch of folk who do this, answer is identify the lawbreakers,pull those involved in that activity in, charge them, jail them if found guilty, two or three ‘peaceful’ protests later I can safely say the problem would be solved.

It’s a matter of sorting things out, acting on them, not arseboxing like what went on out in Jobstown.

Get in, make sure, cast iron,court case,bang bang, stiff fine,or lock up.

Problem solved....... move on.

The Gards should be using tears gas, rubber bullets, batons and dogs. These soft, middle class wannabe socialists would soon be too busy to show up to the protests.

Wheeliebin30

Potential-Monke wrote: »

This. This is what happened. The protestors left peacefully upon presentation of the court order, and the rabble outside caused the trouble. It's always the same. People travel to these social protests just to cause trouble and 'catch out' the Gardaí, and end up posting the worst looking part of a video without what led up to it.

The court order was issued 2 weeks before the eviction,give it over.

Fake news, trump was spot on.

Wheeliebin30

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hmmmmm.... if that’s the case then the Gardaí ‘deserve’ it.

There wouldn’t be a major bunch of folk who do this, answer is identify the lawbreakers,pull those involved in that activity in, charge them, jail them if found guilty, two or three ‘peaceful’ protests later I can safely say the problem would be solved.

It’s a matter of sorting things out, acting on them, not arseboxing like what went on out in Jobstown.

Get in, make sure, cast iron,court case,bang bang, stiff fine,or lock up.

Problem solved....... move on.

It’s lies.

Court order was issued 2 weeks prior and they refused to get out.

Wheeliebin30

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The Gardai should have done it as a matter of law enforcement. The optics of having the Gardai essentially look as if they were siding with and protecting a group of masked, unidentified private operators in a dodgy van were absolutely appalling, and pretty much everyone in the media and political circles has agreed with this. It was a foolish way to do this. If they were in contempt of court, the Gardai could have, and should have, been the ones to enter the property and arrest them. Private security firms are generally regarded as dodgy by the public for various reasons anyway, but the optics of this one were appalling.

Horrendous PR move if nothing else. It shouldn't have happened and most involved seem to now agree that it shouldn't have happened.

Gards aren’t in the job for PR.

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

The court order was issued 2 weeks before the eviction,give it over.

Fake news, trump was spot on.

You realise you two are on the same page, ie - agree with each other yeah?

Anyway, threads prob ran it's course, everyone (with any semblance with sense or power) seems to agree what happened shouldn't have happened, and won't be repeated, a few blowhards in here seem to disagree with what their political masters think, can't get my head round that one this time, but at least they seem to have some sort of mind of their own that seems capable of differing from official party line.

One thing that doesn't.ever seem to have been cleared up for me, the fire retardant masks..... what were they expecting to happen?

Fire retardant seemed a bit OTT to me.

sexmag

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

One thing that doesn't.ever seem to have been cleared up for me, the fire retardant masks..... what were they expecting to happen?

Fire retardant seemed a bit OTT to me.

A unruly crowd was forseen (correctly albeit by a minority but still) and in my opinion the should have worn the full riot gear with helmets and all,who knows what could have kicked off

Wheeliebin30

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You realise you two are on the same page, ie - agree with each other yeah?

Anyway, threads prob ran it's course, everyone (with any semblance with sense or power) seems to agree what happened shouldn't have happened, and won't be repeated, a few blowhards in here seem to disagree with what their political masters think, can't get my head round that one this time, but at least they seem to have some sort of mind of their own that seems capable of differing from official party line.

One thing that doesn't.ever seem to have been cleared up for me, the fire retardant masks..... what were they expecting to happen?

Fire retardant seemed a bit OTT to me.

Boo hoo the big bad boogie men wore a balaclava.

Who can I cry too.

Cry me a river...

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Boo hoo the big bad boogie men wore a balaclava.

Who can I cry too.

Cry me a river...

You ok petal

Alrigghtythen

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Boo hoo the big bad boogie men wore a balaclava.

Who can I cry too.

Cry me a river...

Protestors would never cover their faces at all




https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/homelessness-protesters-descend-dublin-premises-13215130.amp

Alrigghtythen

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Protestors would never cover their faces at all




https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/homelessness-protesters-descend-dublin-premises-13215130.amp

Perhaps the whole point is that the protesters don't enjoy the same exemptions from the law (eg relating to assault) that Gardai can enjoy, and that there may be a legitimate public interest in being able to identify those who enjoy those exemptions!

It's a tough job, being a Garda, but it also confers certain privileges. And in a democratic society, those privileges should be transparent. Not shielded with balaclavas, one might hope.

sexmag

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Perhaps the whole point is that the protesters don't enjoy the same exemptions from the law (eg relating to assault) that Gardai can enjoy, and that there may be a legitimate public interest in being able to identify those who enjoy those exemptions!

It's a tough job, being a Garda, but it also confers certain privileges. And in a democratic society, those privileges should be transparent. Not shielded with balaclavas, one might hope.

The guards (which you seem to be implying) are not exempt from assault, they are however allowed use reasonable force to carry out their duties, this is usually a last resort or used as a defend mechanism.

That kind of misguided thinking is another reason the guards have a tough job

Also protesters should not be assaulting people either, whether their face is covered or not.

What a strange comment

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Perhaps the whole point is that the protesters don't enjoy the same exemptions from the law (eg relating to assault) that Gardai can enjoy, and that there may be a legitimate public interest in being able to identify those who enjoy those exemptions!

It's a tough job, being a Garda, but it also confers certain privileges. And in a democratic society, those privileges should be transparent. Not shielded with balaclavas, one might hope.

Or maybe they didn’t want mummy and daddy finding out where they were spending their time.

tayto lover

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Perhaps the whole point is that the protesters don't enjoy the same exemptions from the law (eg relating to assault) that Gardai can enjoy, and that there may be a legitimate public interest in being able to identify those who enjoy those exemptions!

It's a tough job, being a Garda, but it also confers certain privileges. And in a democratic society, those privileges should be transparent. Not shielded with balaclavas, one might hope.

I don't believe they have any problems with demonstrators at all. I actually had a nice chat with a garda while on the Water protests as he walked alongside us.
Obviously they have difficulties when the thug element are protesting. I doubt some of those actually know why they're protesting but it offers a great opportunity to shout abuse or spit in someone's face as we saw in Darndale. Maybe that's why they wear the cover.

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

One thing that doesn't.ever seem to have been cleared up for me, the fire retardant masks..... what were they expecting to happen?

Fire retardant seemed a bit OTT to me.

It's a standard part of the public order uniform. The whole uniform is designed to be fire retardant. How is that so difficult to understand? Their vests were stab proof and boots were steal capped but I doubt they were expecting to be stabbed or have their foot crushed.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's a standard part of the public order uniform. The whole uniform is designed to be fire retardant. How is that so difficult to understand? Their vests were stab proof and boots were steal capped in I doubt they were expecting to be stabbed or have their foot crushed.

Put simply?

Because unless they all have fire retardant hands, why no gloves?



Maybe the first thing they'd use to extinguish flames would have been their flutes?

Hitman3000

Johnny Dogs wrote:

Because unless they all have fire retardant hands, why no gloves?

Johnny even the dogs on the street know the reason for the balaclava was to hide their faces but it won't be acknowledged here or anywhere else. The official line is it is part of the uniform even without the helmets.

McMurphy

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Johnny even the dogs on the street know the reason for the balaclava was to hide their faces but it won't be acknowledged here or anywhere else. The official line is it is part of the uniform even without the helmets.

Stop messing with my username

No problem with them using the masks incidentally, there's just no need for the top dogs to try and blow smoke up anyone's arse with the "fire protection" arse biscuit spiel.

You expect the gardai to be honest, warts and all. Sugar coat cakes, not reality.

Hitman3000

Johnny Dogs wrote:

You expect the gardai to be honest, warts and all. Sugar coat cakes, not reality.

Funny I have several family members who are guards and honestly I don't believe half of what they say.

hatrickpatrick

tayto lover wrote: »

I was told it was a civil matter and the garda don't and can't get involved.
They are there only to prevent a breach of the peace.
When there was a breach of the peace they intervened.

Surely it becomes a matter of criminal contempt of court once a court order is issued and then actively defied?

hatrickpatrick

Yeah_Right wrote: »

The Gards should be using tears gas, rubber bullets, batons and dogs. These soft, middle class wannabe socialists would soon be too busy to show up to the protests.

If you want to provoke social unrest, this is exactly how you provoke social unrest.

pjohnson

Apparently protests planned today. Has everyone here got their balaclavas to "counter" them?

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Put simply?

Because unless they all have fire retardant hands, why no gloves?

Maybe the first thing they'd use to extinguish flames would have been their flutes?

Poor Johnny. You just can't seem to pick a line. So now you have no issue with the hoods being flame retardant but you have an issue with them not wearing gloves as well? The only person suggesting that they were expecting fire is you.

Alrigghtythen

It might be worth considering making Balaclava's part of the standard uniform for the public order unit.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Poor Johnny. You just can't seem to pick a line.

I don't understand what you mean here, maybe dumb it down for me.

So now you have no issue with the hoods being flame retardant but you have an issue with them not wearing gloves as well?

I'll type this slowly, so try and keep up.

I have not an issue with Gardai wearing fire retardant masks/balaclavas to conceal their identities, they can wear gimp masks if they wish, we get why they do so - doxxing.

There's no need for yourself or top brass from within the organisation to spin a load of waffle about fire retardant masks for safety when it's as plain as the nose on your face that if fire was the real concern, well then they are not fully dressed to deal with it.

Remember what Leo said about needing to know when the gardai say something, that we can trust them?

The only person suggesting that they were expecting fire is you.

As for them expecting fire, I don't believe I ever suggested any such thing, but maybe you would like to direct me to where I posted it?

I'll be here when you get back.