Nine tenants evicted from north Dublin property by men in masks and dark clothing

degsie

Typical clickbait title, poor that the 'national' media took up this non story.

riffmongous

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep!

Haha, I was like, did she really just say that it doesn't matter which way your wear a flag

SchrodingersCat

chunkylover4 wrote: »

It seems that the situation is that Mr Ward had assigned the duty of collecting rent to one tenant by way of subletting. Is it a 3-bed property? If individuals units they must be very small to fit 9 people based on the size of the building.

The property doesn't seem to be registered with the RTB and it seems the receiver sold the property several years ago and it was sold again on 8 June 2020. Other people here have said the landlord continues to take rents after the receiver had taken charge of the property. It seems like the "landlord" is a bit of a scumbag who stole the tenant's money and crammed people into a property in poor conditions, the eviction was terrible but people seem to be championing his cause. Is any of the above incorrect? Apologies if so!

Yes, that is a pretty accurate summary. In addition, the tenants were allegedly given their notice incorrectly and that they gardai were to protect the peace and not take part in the eviction.

Bikerman2019

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

So, it would appear that if legal eagles notified the gardai of a legal eviction, then all was in order. All this crap about illegal eviction, the gardai must have been satisfied that legal processes were aheared to. As for the end comment, "it is because we are black", I thought that was an old cry, was it not changed to "I cannot breath"!

There seems to be failing in the law here if the tenants were never made aware

Bikerman2019

teddyhead wrote: »

Fan of Goldman Sachs ,eh? Your remarks are idiotic.

No, know nothing about them. But reports say they sold it a few months back so they are nothing to do with it.


At the end of the video there is the old chestnut about "it's because we are black". No it is not.


That is the old war cry to claim its racial, and it has been superceeded here.


https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/video-shows-kid-screaming-i-18562118
and here
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/video-shows-kid-screaming-i-22324017



Not true of course, but it is the usual, claim it is because we are black. Discrimination, etc etc.

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

There seems to be failing in the law here if the tenants were never made aware

And what if they were made aware?

Bikerman2019

joeguevara wrote: »

And what if they were made aware?

If the owners of the property were not aware of who the tenants were , and / or had no permission to be there, then how could you notify unknown persons?


IF, and it is a big IF, the proper legal channels were followed, and the gardai were aware of this, then what was done wrong exactly?

joeguevara

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

If the owners of the property were not aware of who the tenants were , and / or had no permission to be there, then how could you notify unknown persons?


IF, and it is a big IF, the proper legal channels were followed, and the gardai were aware of this, then what was done wrong exactly?

Nothing.

But we really need to wait and see what the real facts are. In similar situations previously, what was the facts and what was initially portrayed were hugely different.

Bikerman2019

joeguevara wrote: »

Nothing.

But we really need to wait and see what the real facts are. In similar situations previously, what was the facts and what was initially portrayed were hugely different.

I have to agree. It may well transpire that this whole thing was legal. Or it may transpire it was completely illegal, but we do have to wait and see.
I have little tolerance for stupidity and automatically claiming it was illegal, or was racial, or was legal is wrong, but as a discussion board it is of course fine.


Someone accused me of being a Goldman Sachs fan for saying it as I see it. I stand up to be shot for saying what I see. I dont do politically correct. I prefer to say it as it is.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Correct me if I’m wrong but if 8 people were subletting from 1 tenant then those 8 people don’t need to be given notice only the 1 tenant needs to be given notice as they are subletting to those 8 people who aren’t tenants.

The one tenant who sublets is responsible for notifying the 8 people who are called something else under the law which I can’t remember.

Bikerman2019

Alana Obnoxious Clothespin wrote: »

Correct me if I’m wrong but if 8 people were subletting from 1 tenant then those 8 people don’t need to be given notice only the 1 tenant needs to be given notice as they are subletting to those 8 people who aren’t tenants.

The one tenant who sublets is responsible for notifying the 8 people who are called something else under the law which I can’t remember.

Very good point
If it transpires that there was no lawful tenant and / or they were indeed unknowing (or knowing) squatters, then they are finished.
If it transpires someone was actually letting to them, then they have to go legal on that basis.


This is far from clear, but it should be clearly recognised:

1. It is not racially motivated as claimed.
2. It may actually be completely legal, so a lot of the arguements here are moot.
3. It is just a matter of wait and see, and dont get caught up in the hype and "outrage"

Rubberchikken

its always interesting to wait and see how this type of news pans out. the moral outrage is the obvious start and then as true facts emerge then maybe the outragers will calm themselves until the next time.

how anyone thinks that somewhere rented to 1 that is then occupied by several is an acceptable situation is incomprehensible to me.

maybe going in and smashing things, if this did occur, is unnecessary, but turfing everyone out is fine by me if the correct rules arent being followed.

its not a case of one law for one and let others do what they like.

Bikerman2019

Rubberchikken wrote: »

its always interesting to wait and see how this type of news pans out. the moral outrage is the obvious start and then as true facts emerge then maybe the outragers will calm themselves until the next time.

how anyone thinks that somewhere rented to 1 that is then occupied by several is an acceptable situation is incomprehensible to me.

maybe going in and smashing things, if this did occur, is unnecessary, but turfing everyone out is fine by me if the correct rules arent being followed.

its not a case of one law for one and let others do what they like.

Yep. If legal processes were followed and completed, then what happened is appropriate. I see they have re-entered the house and making themselves at home. For all we know, this could have been the issue all along. Maybe they knew full well this was going to happen but just won't leave.


Or maybe they are the victims here and need support. The outrage will continue though. However, I am surprised, while not following issues like this much, I don;t see the old reliables jumping up and down, SF, PBP, Gilroy, etc etc.



Just wait and see.

Viscount Aggro

seamus wrote: »

I would certainly be casting a skeptical eye on that landlord. If the tenants believed that he was the landlord and were paying him rent even though he knew the property had been sold on - or was in dispute - then that says quite a bit about him.

The Irish Times pops up a few articles about property disputes involving a "Gerry Ward" where he apparently just refuses to accept repossession of his properties.

Chances are there were many, many eviction notices and warning served, but Mr. Ward chose not to alert his tenants.

No excuse really for hiring a crew to smash up the place, but the new owner was likely unaware that the residents didn't know about the dispute and instead from his perspective they were effectively squatters that were ignoring every request to vacate.

Edit: On further research, it would appear that Mr. Ward is one of these "Freeman of the Land" nutjobs, so it looks to me like he was renting the property to these poor people despite not even owning it.

Be careful here, there's more than one Gerry Ward.

The one is previous articles is a psychothe-rapist, address in Leoepardstown

Galwayguy35

silver2020 wrote: »

So the security guys were wearing protective masks just like everyone else in the country.

They were wearing standard black clothing like many people.

They were getting a property owner the property back from people staying there illegal

The "tenants" were effectively squatters with no right to stay in the building.

The "tenants" were paying cash to a head tenant who in turn gave it to some dodgy ex landlord.

Interesting that Gerry Ward is trying to backtrack on what he was saying - probably because revenue will take an interest in this



Very surprised the Irish Times fell for this rubbish. Usually it's the Hysterical or Indo.

I think you are giving The Irish Times way too much credit here, they jump headlong into a story just like the others to ensure outrage levels are high.

Then the full story comes out a few days later.

ted1

Dempo1 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting any landlord instructions his/her agents to break internal doors, toilets and put holes in partition walls, if this did occur, the landlord is as equally thuggish as the individuals engaged in this appalling display of brutality.

Im not suggesting , I’m saying that unless the owner reports that a crime was committed then there was no criminal destruction

Bikerman2019

ted1 wrote: »

Im not suggesting , I’m saying that unless the owner reports that a crime was committed then there was no criminal destruction

Very true.
If it comes out that the tenants had been legally told to leave and refused, then everyone has been taken for a ride on this. Again, if the legal avenues had been completed, and the tenants were playing the outrage wave, then the LL smashing up his own stuff to reinforce a (legal) eviction was a desperate measure


Or perhaps the LL is a bollix and a no good thug who did this illegally.


Wait and see.

weldoninhio

Strumms wrote: »

Whatever about the eviction being rightful or wrongful.... Gardai standing by, observing and facilitating criminal damage occurring to property is a bit concerning.

If the building owner said smash up the bathrooms once the people are legally evicted there is nothing criminal about it. It's his building to do whatever he wants within the law.

James Brown

Destroying the place is a terror tactic. If it's a legal eviction there was no need and I'd be pissed if I owned it.
If the attempted eviction was someone trying their luck, smashing up the place would be a good incentive for the occupants not to return.

joeguevara

Bowie wrote: »

Destroying the place is a terror tactic. If it's a legal eviction there was no need and I'd be pissed if I owned it.
If the attempted eviction was someone trying their luck, smashing up the place would be a good incentive for the occupants not to return.

But if there was going tobe a complete refurb, the owner wouldnt mind, if it was a legal eviction.

Bikerman2019

Bowie wrote: »

Destroying the place is a terror tactic. If it's a legal eviction there was no need and I'd be pissed if I owned it.
If the attempted eviction was someone trying their luck, smashing up the place would be a good incentive for the occupants not to return.

Disagree. Could also be a tactic to discourage them to (illegally?) re-enter the house. From reports, this is exactly what they have done. And as someone else pointed out, it would need to be gutted and refurbished anyway, so why not?

end of the road

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Disagree. Could also be a tactic to discourage them to (illegally?) re-enter the house. From reports, this is exactly what they have done.

doubtful given it seems to generally fail going on other evictions where people have re-entered the property dispite it being smashed up.
more likely to be an intimidation/terror tactic by the rent a thug.

Bikerman2019

end of the road wrote: »

doubtful given it seems to generally fail going on other evictions where people have re-entered the property dispite it being smashed up.
more likely to be an intimidation/terror tactic by the rent a thug.

If it was your house, with, lets say they are illegal (we dont know that), and you were reduced to sending in a private security company to remove them, you would want to make the house as un-returnable as possible. You could spend even more money on big heavy shutters, a security guard or two, even send in a digger to demolish it.

The point is, if you are going to all this trouble, do it right. If they have moved back in again, then this whole episode was a waste of time, and if they are illegals, then he should have driven a digger through it. Do the job properly, the owner is now back to square one.

In the video, it is claimed it is illegal. Possibly true, possibly false.
It is claimed the gardai backed them up - false.
It was claimed it was racial - HAHA but that is a regular claim.
Then I was told I was a lover of Goldman Sachs - who are they, I dont know.

I was also shouted down for pointing out another false claim of "I cannot breath", used to back up a false arguement, I backed it with a video of it in action, another false accusation in real life.

There is the tenants version, the owners version, and the true story. Time will tell which is correct.

Time will tell

joeguevara

Does anyone know how the last 'very public eviction' ended up where it was claimed that loyalist paramilitaries in vans came down to evict a hardworking family around the time leading up to the last election. Was it established whether the eviction was legal or not and were the tenants allowed to return? Its rare that the people who immediately post and tweet about these things ever follow up.

perfectkama

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Disagree. Could also be a tactic to discourage them to (illegally?) re-enter the house. From reports, this is exactly what they have done. And as someone else pointed out, it would need to be gutted and refurbished anyway, so why not?

It was in bits before eviction they had knocked out a wall to a vacant shop next door and they fought like it was there own

anyway they broke back last night same they did before so its theirs now so

Owners are irevelant wait till they close DPs there will be a stampede to every vacant building

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

doubtful given it seems to generally fail going on other evictions where people have re-entered the property dispite it being smashed up.
more likely to be an intimidation/terror tactic by the rent a thug.

There is no evidence of the bailiffs doing any damage to the property .
It's most likely the activists doing to gain maximum publicity I see the Flynn chap is all over this the champion of oul Margaret cash

Bikerman2019

Reading the last few comments, I do not have any sympathy with these tenants.

If they smashed a wall to use the shop next door as an extention, I would seriously doubt anything they say.

Margaret Cash is a free loader, and she got what she wanted and nobody says boo to her. She gets everything handed to her without question. Is that what these tenants are after?

I am on benefits, I have a mortgage split, so I understand about housing and the dangers. I was wiped out in the recession, but I go to school and have exams starting monday.

Gonna bow out now, got work to do. I get so wound up when I see what looks to me like pure free loading and playing on the national outrage.


Slan!

P.S Am stuggling with maths and control systems if anyone wants to offer some assistance.

weldoninhio

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Gardaí should only have a presence to police any public disorder or criminal conduct that may occur but have no role in evictions. From the video, it appears that this was not the case. The Garda can be heard telling the resident that "they had no right anymore to be there".

Aswell as this, Solicitor Gary Daly, who is representing two of the tenants, told TheJournal.ie “there is no legal document circulating which would form the basis for a lawfully authorised eviction. My clients have not been served with one and to best of knowledge gardaí were not in possession of a court order or order of Residential Tenancies Board authorising the eviction of tenants from the property,” he said.

Some of them resident for the previous 8 years. Goldman Sachs, said the fund had sold the property on June 2nd, but was unable to disclose the name of the buyer citing confidentiality reasons. One source said the property had been sold to a Dublin-based company. Two individuals listed as directors of that company did not return requests for comment. Regardless of who owns the property, tenants are still tenants and the sale doesn’t void their rights.

Also, whats the story with these two big lads? Instead of getting Loyalists down from the North to boot people from homes are they getting them from the Ivory Coast? :P

Facebook videos mirror, so they are Ireland flags mirrored.

SchrodingersCat

weldoninhio wrote: »

Facebook videos mirror, so they are Ireland flags mirrored.

Not true. Read back on my posts after the one you quoted.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

A Councillor who’s from the homeless charity who put the people up for a night was on Drivetime claiming it’s illegal.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Council for civil liberties writing to the Gardai, the charity writing too asking why the Gardai were there.

. . . because the tenants called them as they said in the video.

All a bit hysterical.

Alana Obnoxious Clothespin

Alana Obnoxious Clothespin wrote: »

A Councillor who’s from the homeless charity who put the people up for a night was on Drivetime claiming it’s illegal.

Flynn? Mates of his helped the evicted tenants back in. They’re looking for volunteers to repair the damage! And attend tomorrow’s planned protest, which wasn’t getting much attention before this!

Spanish Eyes

Many of my musings from last night might prove to be true.

If the Gardai were there, and there was a court order it was all above board.

If the owner got the tenants out at last, I wouldn't blame him for destroying the property in order to discourage further squatting or dubious sub letting.

It is not always the LL/owner's fault.

Gatling

Alana Obnoxious Clothespin wrote: »

A Councillor who’s from the homeless charity who put the people up for a night was on Drivetime claiming it’s illegal.

He would say mass if he could

Melanchthon

perfectkama wrote: »

It was in bits before eviction they had knocked out a wall to a vacant shop next door and they fought like it was there own

anyway they broke back last night same they did before so its theirs now so

Owners are irevelant wait till they close DPs there will be a stampede to every vacant building

So where is the building in question out of curiousity?

Melanchthon

Melanchthon wrote: »

So where is the building in question out of curiousity?

Here you go. https://www.google.com/maps/place/7+Berkeley+Rd,+Northside,+Dublin,+D07+TD29/@53.358279,-6.2691911,3a,75y,238.46h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRoitrfyB9jaosIfXbm0FCg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670e7f9b666b21:0xd80fb950f2397600?hl=en-GB

Melanchthon

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Here you go. https://www.google.com/maps/place/7+Berkeley+Rd,+Northside,+Dublin,+D07+TD29/@53.358279,-6.2691911,3a,75y,238.46h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRoitrfyB9jaosIfXbm0FCg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670e7f9b666b21:0xd80fb950f2397600?hl=en-GB

Cheers, I was expecting it to be the houses at the Dorset street end of North Circular Road which are a bit dodge.

Melanchthon

Melanchthon wrote: »

Cheers, I was expecting it to be the houses at the Dorset street end of North Circular Road which are a bit dodge.

Instead of being worth half a million before being done up!

Melanchthon

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Instead of being worth half a million before being done up!

It's a weird area alright, people spending that amount of cash on places but the alcos and the addicts etc still very much a regular presence

Beholders

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Lads, look, I posted two images from the video of the eviction (see it here https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-eviction-5175006-Aug2020/) that showed that two of the buff ninjas had sewn their tricolours into their shirts that morning the wrong way around. I amd a joke that the lads must have been hired from the Ivory Coast instead of Loyalists from Nortern Ireland like the last infamous eviction.




I got pulled up on this joke and told that the video was doctored by mirroring it. So I posted up another screenshot from the same video that showed a poster on a bus and another flag that was the correct way around to show that it was not mirrored.






No, I am not blind. Yes, I understand that the flag is the correct way around in second image. That was the point.



I have no issue with the lads being from the Ivory Coast. But I dont think that is likely. Why are ye so quick to assume that the video is wrong without even having looked at it?

Just after watching the video, it a appears that one of the guys does have the Irish flag on wrongly, but it is only one of the guys, (ie it is the same person, that you cited twice in your stills) probably a misprinted security T-shirt uniform. Everyone else is wear what appear to be security uniforms with the flag the correct way, and using masks as we have being asked to do, when entering a crowded indoor place. So the headline that the Irish Times used is a little bit misleading.

Their is though two things that peeked my interest in the video, well three actually.
Firstly the guy standing behind the female Garda, states that I have given you due warning, I posted it up on facebook. (I'm not quoting it directly but given the jest of what I heard).
He says "I" so is he the landlord or the person who responsible for this eviction, he does appear to be a someone that may have some answers (ie directly to what is happening with the eviction)
He also mentions "facebook" is social media actually considered an exceptionable and reliable way to inform someone of a illegal document. (I know if it was me, I probably wouldn't see it for about 2 weeks, although I am on facebook, I don't log in that much)

Lastly at the end of the video, the man keeps pushing this document towards the Garda, from his POV (point of view) and just before the video ends, he says that this is all he has received (I'm paraphrasing here) indicating the document) is this a document that he just received or has he had it for a couple of days?

Anyway, I'm with a lot of other posters, I think there is a communication breakdown somewhere, Tenets - Carer Tenet of property - Old Landlord - New Landlord - Bank, and probably someone was up to no good and keeping the cash, but again that is just my opinion, and I think it may all come out in the next couple of days. I do think that it is quite bad and sensationalized reporting though by the Irish Times. Only time will tell.

I'm still very curious of the person who stated "I" in my first point of the video, if I was working for a company or in conjunction with other people I would have state "We"

Sorry the video is here for people to make up their own minds https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-eviction-5175006-Aug2020/

AlmightyCushion

Beholders wrote: »

Just after watching the video, it a appears that one of the guys does have the Irish flag on wrongly, but it is only one of the guys, (ie it is the same person, that you cited twice in your stills) probably a misprinted security T-shirt uniform. Everyone else is wear what appear to be security uniforms with the flag the correct way, and using masks as we have being asked to do, when entering a crowded indoor place. So the headline that the Irish Times used is a little bit misleading.

Their is though two things that peeked my interest in the video, well three actually.
Firstly the guy standing behind the female Garda, states that I have given you due warning, I posted it up on facebook. (I'm not quoting it directly but given the jest of what I heard).
He says "I" so is he the landlord or the person who responsible for this eviction, he does appear to be a someone that may have some answers (ie directly to what is happening with the eviction)
He also mentions "facebook" is social media actually considered an exceptionable and reliable way to inform someone of a illegal document. (I know if it was me, I probably wouldn't see it for about 2 weeks, although I am on facebook, I don't log in that much)

Lastly at the end of the video, the man keeps pushing this document towards the Garda, from his POV (point of view) and just before the video ends, he says that this is all he has received (I'm paraphrasing here) indicating the document) is this a document that he just received or has he had it for a couple of days?

Anyway, I'm with a lot of other posters, I think there is a communication breakdown somewhere, Tenets - Carer Tenet of property - Old Landlord - New Landlord - Bank, and probably someone was up to no good and keeping the cash, but again that is just my opinion, and I think it may all come out in the next couple of days. I do think that it is quite bad and sensationalized reporting though by the Irish Times. Only time will tell.

I'm still very curious of the person who stated "I" in my first point of the video, if I was working for a company or in conjunction with other people I would have state "We"

Sorry the video is here for people to make up their own minds https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-eviction-5175006-Aug2020/

He didn't say he put the notice on Facebook. He says ' I gave you 7 days and you put me on Facebook'. I assume he came round to give notice and they put it on video and stuck it up on Facebook.

Beholders

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

He didn't say he put the notice on Facebook. He says ' I gave you 7 days and you put me on Facebook'. I assume he came round to give notice and they put it on video and stuck it up on Facebook.

Sorry you are right, I just re-watched it and that is what he said, so yep my apologies for that, and thank you for making that clear. I'm still assuming the guy we are talking about, must be the head of the security firm, or the land lord, I'm assuming he actually owns the security firm, just for the way he uses "I" rather than "We". But anyway that is just an opinion.

The other thing I curious of is I think one of the tenants said they where living their since 2012, shouldn't they have being given 6 months notice rather than 7 days as in regard to RTB website https://www.rtb.ie/ending-a-tenancy/how-a-landlord-can-end-a-tenancy/landlords-grounds-for-ending-a-tenancy. Or am I wrong? This is an honest question, as it has bothered me from the get go.

Edited I'm reading RTB (Residential Tenancies Board) in more detail, and can see possibilities in section 1 and 2, particularly 2 to evict someone, but not without due notice which isn't 7 days, the shortest period is 28 days, if a tenant has being living in said house/apartment for more than 6 months, so where is this 7 days coming from? Is it section 1? is it down to tenants - pay the carer tenant - pays old landlord - pays new landlord - pays bank. (Contracted broken somewhere)There must have being a breakdown in communication somewhere. I hope it's worked out in the next couple of days cause it a chain of payment open to abuse, that leaves both tenant and landlord financially vulnerable.

zerosugarbuzz

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

I'd love to see them do this to the squatters in one of the houses in my estate. We'd offer the evictors cake and biscuits.

I’m sure if you name the estate people will take you up on that .

SchrodingersCat

Beholders wrote: »

Just after watching the video, it a appears that one of the guys does have the Irish flag on wrongly, but it is only one of the guys, (ie it is the same person, that you cited twice in your stills) probably a misprinted security T-shirt uniform. Everyone else is wear what appear to be security uniforms with the flag the correct way, and using masks as we have being asked to do, when entering a crowded indoor place. So the headline that the Irish Times used is a little bit misleading.

Their is though two things that peeked my interest in the video, well three actually.
Firstly the guy standing behind the female Garda, states that I have given you due warning, I posted it up on facebook. (I'm not quoting it directly but given the jest of what I heard) https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-eviction-5175006-Aug2020/

No, two guys was correct originally. If you check the video again, at 0.50 we see one of the stout lads passes the camera man into the back of the house. No other goons pass the cameraman until another tall one appears at the door to enter at 1.26. Both stitched in their flags the wrong way around. The tall one is in the doorway below.

macpaccrack

Why did they even stitch flags to their uniforms by the way?

I mean I can't see ANY logic to it unless they were trying to send a message to the African tenants?

It is just so weird that they stitched the flags on... maybe they were trying to make it look like they were a state agency though. I dont know.

SchrodingersCat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Instead of being worth half a million before being done up!

Are you saying that the house that the eviction was in was worth half a million?

SchrodingersCat

macpaccrack wrote: »

Why did they even stitch flags to their uniforms by the way?

I mean I can't see ANY logic to it unless they were trying to send a message to the African tenants?

It is just so weird that they stitched the flags on... maybe they were trying to make it look like they were a state agency though. I dont know.

I guess they were trying to distance themselves from the last big controversial eviction in Roscommon, where is was alleged that the goons were Loyalists from Northern Ireland.

macpaccrack

macpaccrack wrote: »

Why did they even stitch flags to their uniforms by the way?

I mean I can't see ANY logic to it unless they were trying to send a message to the African tenants?

It is just so weird that they stitched the flags on... maybe they were trying to make it look like they were a state agency though. I dont know.

It would appear that the flags on the sweat shirts are green, white and gold, while those on the tee-shirts are gold, white and green. Obviously a mistake by the machinist. Nothing else.

macpaccrack

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

I guess they were trying to distance themselves from the last big controversial eviction in Roscommon, where is was alleged that the goons were Loyalists from Northern Ireland.

That makes sense.

suicide_circus

Flegs