The Frederick St protest and reaction

blackwhite

Hitman3000 wrote: »

If you think my replies to you are an attack , you'll have to forgive me in thinking you are incredibly sensitive and prehaps the internet is not the place for you. Btw it's hard to take anyone serious who is happy to describe other people as scum simply because of protest.

More personal BS as opposed to debate?

What a shocker

Hitman3000

blackwhite wrote:

More personal BS as opposed to debate?

You can't have a debate with anyone whose starting position is anyone that disagrees with them is scum or a defender of scum.

All Seeing Eye

Hitman3000 wrote: »

What pretext could the guards use to take the actions you have suggested?

The LAW! If say 2-3 people decided to start running out in front of traffic on a busy main road stopping the traffic from flowing the Guards would be called and they’d be asked to stop doing or maybe arrested too. If they didn’t listen to the Guards and decided to keeping running in front of the traffic they’d be physically be removed from the scene so traffic could flow. Why not apply the same principal to this large group with no lawful reason for blocking traffic.

McMurphy

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

The LAW! If say 2-3 people decided to start running out in front of traffic on a busy main road stopping the traffic from flowing the Guards would be called and they’d be asked to stop doing or maybe arrested too. If they didn’t listen to the Guards and decided to keeping running in front of the traffic they’d be physically be removed from the scene so traffic could flow. Why not apply the same principal to this large group with no lawful reason for blocking traffic.

Again.

Farmers protests.

Discuss.

Hitman3000

All Seeing Eye wrote:

The LAW! If say 2-3 people decided to start running out in front of traffic on a busy main road stopping the traffic from flowing the Guards would be called and they’d be asked to stop doing or maybe arrested too. If they didn’t listen to the Guards and decided to keeping running in front of the traffic they’d be physically be removed from the scene so traffic could flow. Why not apply the same principal to this large group with no lawful reason for blocking traffic.

The law? which section of the law allows the guards baton charge and teargas protestors?

c montgomery

What do the protesters hope to achieve?

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

Do paranoia much? That's funny because you called the poster in question a 'very obvious troll' in those PMs............

You sent an unsolicited PM, so I responded with my opinion.

What I’ve seen of your behaviour and the behaviour of your fellow party supporters since has made me wonder how many other unsolicited PMs have been sent

Hitman3000

c montgomery wrote:

What do the protesters hope to achieve?

Genuine action from the government instead of just lip service about the homeless/housing issue.

blackwhite

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You can't have a debate with anyone whose starting position is anyone that disagrees with them is scum or a defender of scum.

And so we move on to strawmanning.

I’m sure you can provide a link where I’ve said anyone who disagrees with me is scum?

Cut the lies

hatrickpatrick

Just to add, I 100% agree with occupying derelict and empty buildings, and I also 100% disagree with protests which are deliberately designed to disrupt random bystanders going about their day and delay people to get attention. As far as I'm concerned, those who are intentionally causing traffic problems are absolute scumbags, and it's utterly cheap and cynical for them to take actions like this in the hopes of generating clickbait headlines.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You can't have a debate with anyone whose starting position is anyone that disagrees with them is scum or a defender of scum.

Indeed. Blackwhite has a very wide definition for what is a 'scumbag' in his lexicon.

https://twitter.com/sharontobin/status/1043491221367398401

Hitman3000

blackwhite wrote:

I’m sure you can provide a link where I’ve said anyone who disagrees with me is scum?

From your posts you disagree with the protests, you have described the protesters as scum.
Yeah strawman......

Brendan Bendar

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Genuine action from the government instead of just lip service about the homeless/housing issue.

Like what?

suicide_circus

having people like Margaret Cash speaking at the protest diminishes it's credibility massively.

blackwhite

Hitman3000 wrote: »

From your posts you disagree with the protests, you have described the protesters as scum.
Yeah strawman......

I’ll label scumbags people who intentionally target ordinary people as was done to day (as do others on this thread as well).

Blantant lying to claim I posted something very different tells us exactly what sort you are though. Keep it classy

Hitman3000

Brendan Bendar wrote:

Like what?

Vacant site tax, for a start. Any suggestions yourself?

McMurphy

suicide_circus wrote: »

having people like Margaret Cash speaking at the protest diminishes it's credibility massively.

But makes a great poster figure for the govt, media, and young FG online supporters.

Paul Murphy was the one during the water protests.

But I agree with your sentiments.

hatrickpatrick

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Like what?

A massive social housing building scheme akin to the Simms-era construction of thousands of units all over Dublin, using both state-owned land, and derelict private land acquired through CPO. Has this not been repeated often enough?

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed. Blackwhite has a very wide definition for what is a 'scumbag' in his lexicon.

https://twitter.com/sharontobin/status/1043491221367398401

Funny how plenty of others on thread use the same description. But you decide to join in to target a single poster.

I wonder how many unsolicited PMs are flying around again this evening.

Seth Brundle

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Genuine action from the government instead of just lip service about the homeless/housing issue.

What kind of genuine action?
Landlords are leaving the rental business in favour of AirBnB because of the hassle from a cohort of tenants who are protected by poor legislation.
There are homes available around the country but many if the housing list don't like the idea that they would have to move out out their preferred locality (something most home buyers have to do). The appeal by Kiltyclogher proved successful for those that moved. Maybe more like a certain Ms Cash could move somewhere like that rather than take up a prime city centre appartment/house.
There's too much pandering to wasters who won't try and improve their lot. This then has an upstream effect on availability.
So what do you suggest the government should do to change the problem within the next year?

BBFAN

blackwhite wrote: »

Except that’s not how the housing schemes work now. Right now the less productive somebody is, the more they are rewarded for it. And they get to keep refusing, or trashing the places they don’t like, until they finally get exactly what they’ve demanded without ever contributing towards it

Exactly why it's called a suggestion so why didn't you answer the question?

average_runner

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A massive social housing building scheme akin to the Simms-era construction of thousands of units all over Dublin, using both state-owned land, and derelict private land acquired through CPO. Has this not been repeated often enough?

And those social.schemes have worked so well in the past when you look at areas in dublin

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

You sent an unsolicited PM, so I responded with my opinion.

What I’ve seen of your behaviour and the behaviour of your fellow party supporters since has made me wonder how many other unsolicited PMs have been sent

I've voted for every party in this state (bar Renua & the PDs) in elections down the years. Sad you would attempt to portray what was a cordial exchange of opinions via PMs as something else entirely and to do it in a public forum too.

Seth Brundle

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Vacant site tax, for a start. Any suggestions yourself?

What percentage of prime vacant sites will be developed within 18 months of the introduction of this tax?

Seth Brundle

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A massive social housing building scheme akin to the Simms-era construction of thousands of units all over Dublin, using both state-owned land, and derelict private land acquired through CPO. Has this not been repeated often enough?

The money for this will come from where exactly? Some forms of government spending will be reduced: which ones should we reduce spending on?

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What percentage of prime vacant sites will be developed within 18 months of the introduction of this tax?

Feck all I'd say, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse not to bring it in. It's a good idea IMO.

Seth Brundle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Feck all I'd say, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse not to bring it in. It's a good idea IMO.

But by your admission it won't help solve the housing issue so shouldn't be counted as a measure that will improve the issue.

Signore Fancy Pants

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Vacant site tax, for a start. Any suggestions yourself?

Why should people be subjected to another tax?

A person who owns a house should be able to do what they want with it. If they want to leave it empty, so what.

Not everybody wants to be a landlord, they have no obligation to rent or sell it.

These protestors that are breaking into someones property should be arrested like anyone else that breaks into someones property.

The protestors who are blocking O'Connell Bridge should be dispersed by whatever degree of force is warranted and some arrested for any offence which is applicable.

Its not illegal to have an empty house, it is illegal to break into one.

Yer Da sells Avon

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The money for this will come from where exactly? Some forms of government spending will be reduced: which ones should we reduce spending on?

The money could be borrowed, as is usually the case with the kind of huge infrastructural projects that ultimately end up paying for themselves.

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

But by your admission it won't help solve the housing issue so shouldn't be counted as a measure that will improve the issue.

I didn't say that. You seem to be excluding timescales as a factor in your reply. It won't help solve it immediately but in the medium to longer term may do so.

hatrickpatrick

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What kind of genuine action?
Landlords are leaving the rental business in favour of AirBnB because of the hassle from a cohort of tenants who are protected by poor legislation.
There are homes available around the country but many if the housing list don't like the idea that they would have to move out out their preferred locality (something most home buyers have to do). The appeal by Kiltyclogher proved successful for those that moved. Maybe more like a certain Ms Cash could move somewhere like that rather than take up a prime city centre appartment/house.
There's too much pandering to wasters who won't try and improve their lot. This then has an upstream effect on availability.
So what do you suggest the government should do to change the problem within the next year?

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/remembering-herbert-simms-the-man-who-rebuilt-dublin-1.3447370

Simms sized upon the political good will and became the driving force behind a large-scale programme of housing construction, which dramatically expanded, and in some cases led, to the creation of new suburbs for Dublin.
“He was a quiet unassuming man who was able to achieve big things and drive forward a really ambitious housing programme in the 1930s which involved large scale housing schemes in the suburbs. Places like Crumlin most of Cabra built under his watch,” McManus says.

The development of the Garden suburb, taken from the Garden City model which emerged in Britain towards the end of the previous century, was an easy sell in the Irish context and the new “corpo house” was popular, but Simms had more ambitious, and more controversial projects in mind to solve the city’s housing crises with the construction of flats.

“Flats were a new solution very much inspired by what going on other parts of Europe. Simms realised not everybody would be able to afford to more to a suburban location and a lot of people needed to live in the city centre close to their place of work.”

Many of the schemes Simms got to work on, Pearse House on Townsend Street, Chancery Place near the four courts and Marrowbone Lane, off Cork Street, remain occupied today. Part of the reason theses flats still stand while later schemes of the 1950s to the 1970s have already been demolished, is the quality of their construction and the thought put into their architecture and their setting, architectural historian Dr Ellen Rowley says.

I simply do not accept, and neither do many prominent commentators today, that something we achieved easily in the early 20th century with all of the problems that we and the rest of Europe had at that time, is impossible to achieve today. All it requires is for the firewall of neoliberalism to crack.

pjohnson

Chewbacca wrote: »

Why should people be subjected to another tax?

A person who owns a house should be able to do what they want with it. If they want to leave it empty, so what.

Not everybody wants to be a landlord, they have no obligation to rent or sell it.

These protestors that are breaking into someones property should be arrested like anyone else that breaks into someones property.

The protestors who are blocking O'Connell Bridge should be dispersed by whatever degree of force is warranted and some arrested for any offence which is applicable.

Its not illegal to hace an empty house, it is illegal to break into one.

Jaysus, one must be awful thick to buy a house they dont want to live in NOR make money on :pac:

Hitman3000

blackwhite wrote:

Blantant lying to claim I posted something very different tells us exactly what sort you are though. Keep it classy

You've referred to people which included children ,that took part in a protest as scum. It's not me tbh that needs to be classy.

hatrickpatrick

Chewbacca wrote: »

A person who owns a house should be able to do what they want with it. If they want to leave it empty, so what.

Let's imagine we had actually introduced water charges. Would you have been making this argument during the drought earlier this summer - "we're paying directly for how much water we use, so people should be able do what they want with it" - and therefore opposed a measure such as the hosepipe ban, designed to conserve it in a time of crisis?

Captain Obvious

pjohnson wrote: »

Jaysus, one must be awful thick to buy a house they dont want to live in NOR make money on :pac:

What if they are just trying to get money together to do it up but have fallen on tight times?

hatrickpatrick

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You've referred to people which included children ,that took part in a protest as scum. It's not me tbh that needs to be classy.

Blocking traffic and thereby hurting innocent civilians is a scummy thing to do. They should have stuck with a peaceful rally designed to draw attention and not generate headlines by f*cking up random peoples' day.

Wheeliebin30

Have we achieved free houses for everyone yet?

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

I've voted for every party in this state (bar Renua & the PDs) in elections down the years. Sad you would attempt to portray what was a cordial exchange of opinions via PMs as something else entirely and to do it in a public forum too.

At the time I’d have thought that was what it was as well, even if I thought it very odd to receive a message about another poster.

From what I’ve seen since it’s made me wonder about the motivation tbh

Hitman3000

Seth Brundle wrote:

What percentage of prime vacant sites will be developed within 18 months of the introduction of this tax?

Eventhough the reply was not directed at you , how ridiculous is it to answer a question with a question?

Signore Fancy Pants

pjohnson wrote: »

Jaysus, one must be awful thick to buy a house they dont want to live in NOR make money on :pac:

Nothing about being "thick".

I know a couple who own a house here and in another country, they spend a few months here and a few months there.

I know a guy who emigrated and owns a house here, it is being cared for by relatives until he returns.

Im sure there are also more reasons houses are legitimately empty and it really doesnt matter why either.

pjohnson

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What if they are just trying to get money together to do it up but have fallen on tight times?

Eh would they not be smart enough to ensure they had enough money to do it up? Or buy a house that doesnt need such expensive doing up?

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/remembering-herbert-simms-the-man-who-rebuilt-dublin-1.3447370

Simms sized upon the political good will and became the driving force behind a large-scale programme of housing construction, which dramatically expanded, and in some cases led, to the creation of new suburbs for Dublin.
“He was a quiet unassuming man who was able to achieve big things and drive forward a really ambitious housing programme in the 1930s which involved large scale housing schemes in the suburbs. Places like Crumlin most of Cabra built under his watch,” McManus says.

The development of the Garden suburb, taken from the Garden City model which emerged in Britain towards the end of the previous century, was an easy sell in the Irish context and the new “corpo house” was popular, but Simms had more ambitious, and more controversial projects in mind to solve the city’s housing crises with the construction of flats.

“Flats were a new solution very much inspired by what going on other parts of Europe. Simms realised not everybody would be able to afford to more to a suburban location and a lot of people needed to live in the city centre close to their place of work.”

Many of the schemes Simms got to work on, Pearse House on Townsend Street, Chancery Place near the four courts and Marrowbone Lane, off Cork Street, remain occupied today. Part of the reason theses flats still stand while later schemes of the 1950s to the 1970s have already been demolished, is the quality of their construction and the thought put into their architecture and their setting, architectural historian Dr Ellen Rowley says.

I simply do not accept, and neither do many prominent commentators today, that something we achieved easily in the early 20th century with all of the problems that we and the rest of Europe had at that time, is impossible to achieve today. All it requires is for the firewall of neoliberalism to crack.

There is no similar land available close to the city centre.

We have a number of problems, those on the housing list want to live near the city centre but they don't want to live in high-rise apartments, and anyway the stupid DCC won't give permission for high-rise. There is no solution unless unrealistic expectations are changed.

20Cent

2018 you'd think building some affordable houses where there is great demand wouldn't be beyond the abilities of our politicians.

Yer Da sells Avon

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What if they are just trying to get money together to do it up but have fallen on tight times?

They should have to apply for planning permission to leave it vacant, providing some kind of timescale as to when they might be able to do something with it.

Signore Fancy Pants

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Let's imagine we had actually introduced water charges. Would you have been making this argument during the drought earlier this summer - "we're paying directly for how much water we use, so people should be able do what they want with it" - and therefore opposed a measure such as the hosepipe ban, designed to conserve it in a time of crisis?

Rubbish.

My reasoning does not need to be twisted or applied to another scenario and merely doing so undermines your argument and it's not actually an apt scenario.

Explain to me why there is a housing crisis and how a 'vacant property tax' will fix it.

Hitman3000

Chewbacca wrote:

A person who owns a house should be able to do what they want with it. If they want to leave it empty, so what.

I would tend to agree with you if we were not in the middle of a housing crisis. Use it or pay for the privilege of it sitting idle.

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

At the time I’d have thought that was what it was as well, even if I thought it very odd to receive a message about another poster.

From what I’ve seen since it’s made me wonder about the motivation tbh

Eh? I haven't been in this thread for a few days. Today you referred to these protesters on O'Connell St bridge as 'scumbags'. I thought your opinion re this (as did others) as objectionable and responded as I did. Its you who attempted to make it personal with all the stuff about PMs, cults etc.

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh? I haven't been in this thread for a few days. Today you referred to these protesters on O'Connell St bridge as 'scumbags'. I thought your opinion re this (as did others) as objectionable and responded as I did. Its you who attempted to make it personal with all the stuff about PMs, cults etc.

You (and a few others) have decided to single one person out and ignore anyone else who’s made the same or similar comments.
Seems very like picking targets tbh

Guy:Incognito

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The law? which section of the law allows the guards baton charge and teargas protestors?

How many constitutes a protest rather than some **** wit just sitting in the street on their own blocking traffic who would be removed fairly shapish?

All Seeing Eye

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The law? which section of the law allows the guards baton charge and teargas protestors?

Hold on until I get my law books out. They’ve used force plenty of times before to remove unauthorised sit down protests from the streets especially in Dublin.

Waits to be called right winger/nazi etc.............