Worldwide Occupy Movement?

12-02-2012 2:19pm

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/traders-rage-at-central-banks-occupy-policy-3017124.html

OWNERS of businesses surrounding the Occupy Dame Street protest camp at the Central Bank in Dublin have accused the bank of 'side-stepping' the damage being done to local traders.

Central Bank Governor Patrick Honohan said last week that while he didn't "welcome" the occupation of the Dame Street concourse, he has no plans to take action against the protesters.

"A new development on Dame Street has been the arrival of the Occupy Movement," he said. "While not everyone is happy with their being there, several people have said to me that their presence symbolises, albeit in a rather ambiguous and even incoherent way, the feelings of a large part of society in regard to what has gone wrong in the financial sector and with the banks.

"We don't welcome their presence, but -- as long as no one is harmed or put in danger by them -- we are not at present inclined to take action to have them moved away."

But local traders are extremely unhappy with the situation and say that jobs are on the line.

"What's really irritating is the stand that the bank is taking on it, and the powers that be. It seems that they're all side-stepping it," local business owner John Murphy told the Sunday Independent last week.

"If I put a piece of cardboard outside that door I'd get a fine, yet in the capital city in the centre, in the main tourist area, that is permitted to take place. It doesn't make sense," he added.

"At the minute I think it's a protest of ego, as opposed to a protest of conscience. There's very few of them actually staying there. This is our capital city and the fact that they've set up a shanty town right across there really irritates me. Obviously there's the collateral damage that it's causing to the business as well. Then when the weather gets milder, what is it going to attract then?"

"They came at Halloween and for the first week or two it didn't really affect anything, but then it just got bigger and bigger and really messy, and attracted loads of loopers and headbangers," said Frank McQuade, who owns two shops directly facing the camp.

"I would think that when the weather gets better, it will get more difficult. We asked them for weeks and weeks and explained to them about being small businesses and needing the footfall of customers coming across there. They kept fobbing us off for weeks, right over Christmas and then in January we had meetings every week with them and they'd say 'oh we'll go back to our assembly'. There are no leaders or bosses, so it's very handy, they don't have to do anything then."

Mr McQuade is quick to point out that he has no issue with their protest in theory, but in practice it is a very different story. Having witnessed some Occupy Dame street protesters openly urinating in the street, and the camp becoming little other than a fire hazard, Frank McQuade has reached his wits' end.

"Jesus I hate the banks more than they do!" he said. "But there's at least 50 jobs on the line because of them, if not more. I'm 25 years here in April and this is the worst year even including the eighties."

A few doors down, Paddy Conlon, manager of Candy Lab, explained how he has watched people get off the bus and avoid walking near his shop due to the camp.

"It's a major concern to us. It's very untidy," he said. "The main house they have at the front of the bank is fine and I think they should just focus on that.

"It's well known that some nights there is absolutely nobody camping there."

"It couldn't be done by me and you," Mr Conlon added, "to erect anything you need planning permission."

For John Murphy, the camp has taken a worthy cause and discredited it.

"There's no discussions with them," he said. "We've tried every means to get them to reduce the size of the camp or make it more aesthetically pleasing but there's no give with them. It seems like these are serial protesters and if it isn't the oil or trees of whatever it'd be something else. I actually don't think they've done much good."

"For the first three months I pretty much stayed here constantly," said protester Padraig Loughran, 21, from Trim, Co Meath, in the kitchen area of the Occupy camp.

"I've gone away now doing other things," he explained, "but I come back every now and then and check in. The movement is much bigger than the camp itself, the camp is a statement and must remain so as a permanent statement and as a permanent raising of awareness."

Asked if he'd worry that jobs may be lost as a result of the camp's close proximity to these small businesses, the campaigner, who studied acting for two years, replied: "I can understand where they're coming from, but when one gentleman first came to us with his grievances, a member from the camp went over and had a look at his books and had a talk with him and you know, you're in the middle of a recession! You're charging €16.50 for a hair cut! Your business isn't really going to boom! whether or not that's a direct cause of us, I don't personally think so. No."

Seriously. I love a protest as much as the next man, but it's time to turf these people out and reclaim Dame Street for the citizens of Ireland, rather than a tiny minority of (lets be blunt) highly delusional protesters.

20Cent · 12-02-2012 2:40pm

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/traders-rage-at-central-banks-occupy-policy-3017124.html

Seriously. I love a protest as much as the next man, but it's time to turf these people out and reclaim Dame Street for the citizens of Ireland, rather than a tiny minority of (lets be blunt) highly delusional protesters.

The Central Bank have said they have no problem with the protesters and they own the property. So why should they be "turfed out"?

oscarBravo · 12-02-2012 2:52pm

20Cent wrote: »

The Central Bank have said they have no problem with the protesters and they own the property. So why should they be "turfed out"?

Did you completely miss the point of the story, or are you being actively malicious towards the people whose livelihoods are being damaged by the protesters?

AlekSmart · 12-02-2012 3:12pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Did you completely miss the point of the story, or are you being actively malicious towards the people whose livelihoods are being damaged by the protesters?

I'm afraid OscarBravo,that you are correct in your assertion....the points were missed,by a country mile.

"If I put a piece of cardboard outside that door I'd get a fine, yet in the capital city in the centre, in the main tourist area, that is permitted to take place. It doesn't make sense," he added.

A very simple and yet relevant point for a commercial ratepayer to make...DCC has staff driving around Dublin in the wee small hours taking photos of commercial premises which may be transgressing some of the multiplicity of bye-laws and regulations governing their trading.

"At the minute I think it's a protest of ego, as opposed to a protest of conscience. There's very few of them actually staying there.

Quite a few of the posts on here would tend to support this POV ?

They kept fobbing us off for weeks, right over Christmas and then in January we had meetings every week with them and they'd say 'oh we'll go back to our assembly'. There are no leaders or bosses, so it's very handy, they don't have to do anything then.

The businesses have real people in charge,with addresses and existances which have responsibilities attached....sigh :rolleyes:

"There's no discussions with them," he said. "We've tried every means to get them to reduce the size of the camp or make it more aesthetically pleasing but there's no give with them. It seems like these are serial protesters and if it isn't the oil or trees of whatever it'd be something else. I actually don't think they've done much good."

"For the first three months I pretty much stayed here constantly," said protester Padraig Loughran, 21, from Trim, Co Meath, in the kitchen area of the Occupy camp.

"I've gone away now doing other things," he explained, "but I come back every now and then and check in. The movement is much bigger than the camp itself, the camp is a statement and must remain so as a permanent statement and as a permanent raising of awareness."

I'm always a bit suss when I see terms such as "raising awareness" combined with exhortations that those whose awareness is being raised "Must do" stuff.....it's usually about then I think of the quote sometimes attributed to Hermann Goering,about reaching for his revolver upon hearing the term Culture mentioned....:eek:

I suppose if a full time employee in any job in the current environment wished to "go away and do other things" he/she might have great difficulty simply rambling back into work to "check-in" with how stuff is going.....

It's our Magic Kingdom really ...."when you wish upon a star,makes no difference where you are etc etc"....

davoxx · 12-02-2012 3:17pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Did you completely miss the point of the story, or are you being actively malicious towards the people whose livelihoods are being damaged by the protesters?

well despite the spin put on the story, facts are facts. i'm sure they have a point, but so do ods, and they have every right to be there ...

but i'm sure businesses will find other excuses, you know minimum wages, water rates, the previous appearance of dame street ... but it would be quite hard to show that ods effected their footfall ...

Dr Galen · 12-02-2012 4:02pm

So considering that many of these business owners would be part of the 99% that Occupy claim to represent, it can't be proven that the camp is affecting business, and thus, the opinion would be - screw 'em?

:rolleyes:

20Cent · 12-02-2012 4:09pm

Sounds like a Goldilocks problem, the camp is too big, too small, ideas too broad, too specific, speech is too much and too little all at the same time.

Dr Galen · 12-02-2012 4:18pm

Sounds to me like a problem of Occupy's own making tbh

A mish mash of ideas, ideologies and aims. All mixed together into a semi populist rhetoric that when examined doesn't seem to mean very much. The Fianna Fail of protest politics in essence.

20Cent · 12-02-2012 4:21pm

Dr Galen wrote: »

Sounds to me like a problem of Occupy's own making tbh

A mish mash of ideas, ideologies and aims. All mixed together into a semi populist rhetoric that when examined doesn't seem to mean very much. The Fianna Fail of protest politics in essence.

Thats a feature of grass roots movement. If loads of people turned up with the exact same signs, opinions and messages it would be pretty suspect don't you think. Grassroots is messy and a bit anarchic by nature. Its a side effect but also a strength.

davoxx · 12-02-2012 4:38pm

Dr Galen wrote: »

So considering that many of these business owners would be part of the 99% that Occupy claim to represent, it can't be proven that the camp is affecting business, and thus, the opinion would be - screw 'em?

:rolleyes:

screw who? the 99%?
and how are they being screwed, other than by the 1%?

davoxx · 12-02-2012 4:42pm

Dr Galen wrote: »

Sounds to me like a problem of Occupy's own making tbh

A mish mash of ideas, ideologies and aims. All mixed together into a semi populist rhetoric that when examined doesn't seem to mean very much. The Fianna Fail of protest politics in essence.

possibly, or maybe it is an excuse spread by those who are against the occupy movement ...

the meaning remains unchanged, whether people follow it, that it a different matter.

i'm not sure what FF has to do with occupy other than being the opposite of what they want ...

Dr Galen · 12-02-2012 5:34pm

I'm not intrinsically against the Occupy movement though and those are my thoughts. That argument doesn't hold any water for me so.

hatrickpatrick · 12-02-2012 5:45pm

Not to be a backseat mod here

but any chance we could keep the story about shop owners objecting to ODS out of this thread? It has its own thread already and TBH I'm glad to find a thread here debating the ideologies of the worldwide movement for once, would hate to see it get derailed.

To get back on topic though, I'm going to be blunt about this for a second:

To Godge, Permabear etc, do you honestly deny / disbelieve that there is a serrious worldwide problem in terms of governance, cronyism, and the ordinary man or woman being used as pawns by the powerful?

I mean do you honestly deny that greed, not 'mistakes', were to blame for a lot of the scandals we've seen?
Very specifically, how do you react to my assertion that far from "making mistakes", the banksters operated with an agenda of "I'll have my fun and I don't care who I hurt in the process"?

That IMO is the fundamental keystone of what happened, both in the banks AND in government, and all the collusion between them. Selfish "As long as I'm ok and I get away with it, f*ck everyone else" mentalities. And those are the people I want to see facing the consequences I and other innocent bystanders are facing because of their actions.

FreudianSlippers · 12-02-2012 5:53pm

This is a thread about the worldwide occupy movement... so the damage it is doing to local businesses is important. I just heard about a story in the US where occupiers are throwing bricks through breaking restaurant windows.

They also caused random destructive acts. Source

wearytraveller · 12-02-2012 6:00pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is a thread about the worldwide occupy movement... so the damage it is doing to local businesses is important. I just heard about a story in the US where occupiers are throwing bricks through restaurant windows.

They also caused random destructive acts. Source

I also read about this, and about the Occupy movements almost universal denouncement of violence as a means of achieving objectives. Without in any way condoning violent behaviour, however, I would say that the people in Oakland have a lot of reason to be angry, protestors have been hospitalised by police brutality whilst they remained peaceful. It is hardly any wonder that a few find it hard to remain calm. However, this behaviour is not encouraged or condoned by the Occupy movement as far as I have seen.

davoxx · 12-02-2012 7:24pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is a thread about the worldwide occupy movement... so the damage it is doing to local businesses is important. I just heard about a story in the US where occupiers are throwing bricks through restaurant windows.

They also caused random destructive acts. Source

i'm not sure what the point is here ... i mean there are corrupt police, does that mean that the entire police force should be dismissed?

FreudianSlippers · 12-02-2012 7:33pm

wearytraveller wrote: »

I also read about this, and about the Occupy movements almost universal denouncement of violence as a means of achieving objectives. Without in any way condoning violent behaviour, however, I would say that the people in Oakland have a lot of reason to be angry, protestors have been hospitalised by police brutality whilst they remained peaceful. It is hardly any wonder that a few find it hard to remain calm. However, this behaviour is not encouraged or condoned by the Occupy movement as far as I have seen.

davoxx wrote: »

i'm not sure what the point is here ... i mean there are corrupt police, does that mean that the entire police force should be dismissed?

The article, if you read it, is about Occupiers in Portland Oregon breaking windows of restaurants and cars, throwing garbage on the streets and spray painting random cars in "support of Occupy Oakland".
Not even about brutality or corruption in their own city, let alone state - they descend into random senseless acts of vandalism.

southsiderosie · 12-02-2012 7:38pm

20Cent wrote: »

Thats a feature of grass roots movement. If loads of people turned up with the exact same signs, opinions and messages it would be pretty suspect don't you think. Grassroots is messy and a bit anarchic by nature. Its a side effect but also a strength.

No it is not, and that is a lazy assessment.

I've organized a number of protests and public actions in the past, both as part of more grassroots-ad hoc organizations, and as a staffer for a trade union.

The most important thing any group that wants to make change can do is have a clear, coherent, consistent message. However big and messy the underlying issue is, and however, difficult it is to hold together a mish-mash coalition, the public message has to follow those three C's - when you talk to the media, when you hand out leaflets, etc. When I see groups that have leaflets with 40 bulletpoints, or see a protest site that is ostensibly about one thing, but then has people agitating for bike lanes, veganism, and breast feeding (a la the indignados movement in Madrid a few months back), I know right off that they are doomed to irrelevance.

Those who are within the Occupy movement may see it as internally democratic, hence the unwieldy nature of their political demands and manifestos. But effectively challenging the status quo requires a level of single-mindedness and discipline that the very ethos of the Occupy movement as it has evolved discourages. Inchoate rage can only take you so far, and broadly wishing for a 'better world' is little better than a feel-good exercise.

Ultimately, grassroots organizing may be messy and anarchic, but effective social movements require a far more single-minded, strategic, and coherent set of demands and confrontation that the Occupy movement has demonstrated. Occupy movements in multiple settings have had windows of opportunity to capitalize on public support for their actions, but more importantly public anger towards political and business elites. And in my view, they have hopelessly squandered those opportunities. Whatever changes in business-government relations and social policy happen in the future, I doubt they will be driven by the Occupy movement.

davoxx · 12-02-2012 7:40pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The article, if you read it, is about Occupiers in Portland Oregon breaking windows of restaurants and cars, throwing garbage on the streets and spray painting random cars in "support of Occupy Oakland".
Not even about brutality or corruption in their own city, let alone state - they descend into random senseless acts of vandalism.

i read it, my point was that there are police officers that break the law as well, though the police establishment is officially against that.

i suppose if it was a co-ordinated act of violence as opposed to random, you'd feel better? maybe thought out acts of vandalism is okay?

unless occupy actively encourages violence, the acts of a few protesters is not reflective of the entire movement.

20Cent · 12-02-2012 8:09pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

No it is not, and that is a lazy assessment.

I've organized a number of protests and public actions in the past, both as part of more grassroots-ad hoc organizations, and as a staffer for a trade union.

The most important thing any group that wants to make change can do is have a clear, coherent, consistent message. However big and messy the underlying issue is, and however, difficult it is to hold together a mish-mash coalition, the public message has to follow those three C's - when you talk to the media, when you hand out leaflets, etc. When I see groups that have leaflets with 40 bulletpoints, or see a protest site that is ostensibly about one thing, but then has people agitating for bike lanes, veganism, and breast feeding (a la the indignados movement in Madrid a few months back), I know right off that they are doomed to irrelevance.

Those who are within the Occupy movement may see it as internally democratic, hence the unwieldy nature of their political demands and manifestos. But effectively challenging the status quo requires a level of single-mindedness and discipline that the very ethos of the Occupy movement as it has evolved discourages. Inchoate rage can only take you so far, and broadly wishing for a 'better world' is little better than a feel-good exercise.

Ultimately, grassroots organizing may be messy and anarchic, but effective social movements require a far more single-minded, strategic, and coherent set of demands and confrontation that the Occupy movement has demonstrated. Occupy movements in multiple settings have had windows of opportunity to capitalize on public support for their actions, but more importantly public anger towards political and business elites. And in my view, they have hopelessly squandered those opportunities. Whatever changes in business-government relations and social policy happen in the future, I doubt they will be driven by the Occupy movement.

Sorry but this is totally different situation. Its a worldwide movement tackling massive complex problems.
There is also a 3 C message despite all attempts to muddy the water.
It has already succeeded in leaving a lasting legacy. It has changed to whole campaign for president in the US and peoples attitudes towards Wall St. Even Romney is getting grief from republicans for his ties to wall st something unthinkable only a year ago.
There isn't some measure or tangible thing to mark success like a new cycle lane but it is defiantly making a big difference.

southsiderosie · 12-02-2012 8:34pm

20Cent wrote: »

Sorry but this is totally different situation. Its a worldwide movement tackling massive complex problems.
There is also a 3 C message despite all attempts to muddy the water.
It has already succeeded in leaving a lasting legacy. It has changed to whole campaign for president in the US and peoples attitudes towards Wall St. Even Romney is getting grief from republicans for his ties to wall st something unthinkable only a year ago.
There isn't some measure or tangible thing to mark success like a new cycle lane but it is defiantly making a big difference.

I have seen no tangible change in the GOP race because of the Occupy movement - it's the remnants of the Tea Party movement who are angry with Wall Street within the GOP, and right-wing (and left-wing) populism in the US has always had time for anti-Eastern banking interests. And Romney is going to get grief from his party regardless: the base didn't like him in 2008, and they certainly dont like him now. OWS was fascinating to journalists and gave hope to left-wing activists, but I haven't seen any real change in how either party does business because of it.

What exactly is the three-C message? You don't even get that when you visit Occupy camps! I certainly haven't in the Occupy sites I have visited in Spain and the US: there is a hodge-podge of loosely left-wing platforms all under the leaky umbrella of Occupy.

Spain is a perfect example. People were fed up with the corruption of the political process, and the Indignado movement fed on that. But once they had the hearts and minds of large swathes of the Spanish population, they didn't actually do anything with it, and after a month, the same shopkeepers who were bringing crates of food and water to the people camped out in Sol, in central Madrid, were loudly complaining that the indignados were doing little else but destroying local business. For people who really wanted to see changes to Spanish electoral rules around corruption, or reform to the draconian banking laws which saddled people with mortgages long after then had been turfed out of their homes, this was a colossal missed opportunity.

ed2hands · 12-02-2012 8:36pm

davoxx wrote: »

i'm not sure what the point is here ... i mean there are corrupt police, does that mean that the entire police force should be dismissed?

This.

20Cent · 12-02-2012 8:52pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

I have seen no tangible change in the GOP race because of the Occupy movement - it's the remnants of the Tea Party movement who are angry with Wall Street within the GOP, and right-wing (and left-wing) populism in the US has always had time for anti-Eastern banking interests. And Romney is going to get grief from his party regardless: the base didn't like him in 2008, and they certainly dont like him now. OWS was fascinating to journalists and gave hope to left-wing activists, but I haven't seen any real change in how either party does business because of it.

What exactly is the three-C message? You don't even get that when you visit Occupy camps! I certainly haven't in the Occupy sites I have visited in Spain and the US: there is a hodge-podge of loosely left-wing platforms all under the leaky umbrella of Occupy.

Spain is a perfect example. People were fed up with the corruption of the political process, and the Indignado movement fed on that. But once they had the hearts and minds of large swathes of the Spanish population, they didn't actually do anything with it, and after a month, the same shopkeepers who were bringing crates of food and water to the people camped out in Sol, in central Madrid, were loudly complaining that the indignados were doing little else but destroying local business. For people who really wanted to see changes to Spanish electoral rules around corruption, or reform to the draconian banking laws which saddled people with mortgages long after then had been turfed out of their homes, this was a colossal missed opportunity.

You have Newt Gingrich making a half hour feckin movie attacking greedy capitalists!! Obama is practically talking like an Occupier now what more you want.

Economic Justice is the resounding message coming from all the camps.

What would your 3 C message be?

hatrickpatrick · 12-02-2012 11:10pm

Godge wrote: »

Yes, you did and I explained to you several pages ago following a specific request from you the sequence of events and happenings that showed that there was no clear evidence of any corruption and it was due to stupid decisions by a now defeated FF government. You, of course, had no answer and ran away from the debate. Here it is again below for you, in case you have forgotten.

I did not in fact run away from the debate, in fact I typed up an answer to that which I assumed I had posted, I now notice I hadn't.

My issue was with points two and four.
Firstly, in point one:

Firstly, there was the stupidly over-confident David Drumm and Sean Fitzpatrick who believed they could build a third force in Irish banking and who convinced thousands of shareholders, investers, government ministers and officials and loan customers, mostly businessmen that their stupid foolish dream could come true.

I simply do not believe that was 'foolish'. They knew exactly the kind of shady, dishonest dealing they were getting involved with from the start, re hidden loans and golden circles, and it seems to me they simply didn't give a crap. "I've had my fun, and that's all that matters" again. The shareholders were indeed naive, but let's not forget that they too were deceived about hidden loans etc.

Point two, you again use the word "stupid" with regard to other banks who followed suite. I don't like the word "stupid" in this context as it implies that responsibility is at least slightly diminished. There is of course a difference between naive stupidity and deliberately being a "chancer", and I firmly believe the Irish banks were a case of the latter. They knew exactly what they were doing.
I put it to you that if Drumm, FitzPatrick etc were merely "stupid", they wouldn't have thought it necessary to hide their loans and use insider trading to prop up the share price with the golden circle. They knew it was wrong and they knew they shouldn't have been doing it - otherwise they wouldn't have gone to such elaborate lengths to cover it up.

Point four, you again cite stupidity on the part of the politicians. Yet again I object to the use of this word. You can't plead insanity in court if the reality is you were perfectly sane, but you chose to do it anyway because you thought it was worth the risk. They were not "stupid", they were chancers, they were dishonest, and they should be held fully responsible for their conscious decisions.

I agree with point three to some extent, but I put it to you that those in power were persistently telling everyone that it was perfect and there was nothing wrong with what was going on, with our esteemed former leader going so far as to tell naysayers to commit suicide. People were certainly naive, I'm not denying that, but they were also misled, and the majority of the people did not deliberately engage in illicit behavior and try to cover it up.

I would say to you that illegal activity happens all the time, be it individuals, corporations or others but there is no evidence at all of corruption (that involves government, remember). So stop calling it corruption, call it possible illegal activity. And then present some evidence to show it was illegal and I don't mean something from some conspiracy theory site.

Corruption is defined as abuse of power in order to illicitly better yourself or your friends / colleagues. Illegal activity does indeed happen all the time. I make my accusations of corruption when I see those in power magically turning a blind eye, sweeping it under the carpet, awarding bailouts and loud public defenses, and all for people they just so happen to be personal friends of.

If there was no attempt at a cover up, there would have been a rigorous and immediate investigation into every allegation of wrongdoing in every major bank, and those responsible would have been held accountable. Some investigations are indeed underway into Anglo, and apparently they will soon conclude so we'll find out whether or not they had any teeth, but the very fact that the previous government knew about the Golden Circle and kept quiet about it should in itself have warranted a cover up charge.

A lie of omission is still a lie.

I'm not going to keep repeating and posting lists of the dodgy, unexplained happenings in all of those banks at nauseum, I've posted them often enough before - and ironically given your accusing me of running from debates, the posts have generally gone unanswered.

By the way, off topic for this thread I know, but in case further down the line you suggest that Greece's only troubles are to do with simple over indebtedness and mismanagement...

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-greece-paid-goldman-300-million-to-help-it-hide-its-ballooning-debts-2010-2

Looks like a fair amount of dodgy dealing went on there as well.
How you can defend this kind of thing is absolutely beyond me. You can call the people naive and foolish, but there is no excuse, ever, for a government lying to the people and covering up its behavior.

Dishonesty is dishonesty - simple as.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 13-02-2012 1:23pm

Hmmm, some of these protesters are doing themselves a dis-service I think.

Something that annoys me very much is that some (and I say some) of these protesters revel in the misery of other people, the worse things get for others the stronger their arguments and positions become. When the world and Irish economies recover their arguments will be lost and they will have no reason to be.

I know someone that would subscribe to most of the Occupy movement's ideas and he has pretty much taken the line that he *won't* work (a huge difference from "can't work") as he sees this in many ways as the beginning of the end, that there will be no recovery and the end game will be fascist governments and nuclear war (not an exaggeration on my part, he does say this). In his mind, what's the point of working or doing anything?

Now I like the guy, but I've no doubt that he looks at me and sees me as a sheep in the herd because I get up every morning for work.

I know we are going through very tough times but I do see a light at the end of the tunnel, there will be economic recovery (when exactly is the $1 million question).

So do the majority of the Occupy protesters/supporters see a light at the end of the tunnel?

FreudianSlippers · 13-02-2012 1:50pm

davoxx wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The article, if you read it, is about Occupiers in Portland Oregon breaking windows of restaurants and cars, throwing garbage on the streets and spray painting random cars in "support of Occupy Oakland".
Not even about brutality or corruption in their own city, let alone state - they descend into random senseless acts of vandalism.

i read it, my point was that there are police officers that break the law as well, though the police establishment is officially against that.

i suppose if it was a co-ordinated act of violence as opposed to random, you'd feel better? maybe thought out acts of vandalism is okay?

unless occupy actively encourages violence, the acts of a few protesters is not reflective of the entire movement.

That is ridiculous in honesty. Occupy is either a movement or it isn't. When acts are carried out in the name of occupy and in relation to the circumstances of another occupy movement then it's far too convenient for the rest of the movement to then turn around and say, well it's not the movement but individuals.

Police corruption is not relevant here. What's relevant is senseless destruction and violence by occupies.

davoxx · 13-02-2012 2:13pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That is ridiculous in honesty.

your blinding assertion of denial is baffling to be honest ... my point is logical and factually based.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Occupy is either a movement or it isn't.

yes, occupy is a movement. i don't think anyone would argue with that classification.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

When acts are carried out in the name of occupy and in relation to the circumstances of another occupy movement then it's far too convenient for the rest of the movement to then turn around and say, well it's not the movement but individuals.

when acts are bing carried out in the name of an organisation/movement/country/celebrity it does not necessarily reflect the actual intentions of said organisation/movement/country/celebrity. this is a fact.

the rest of the movement are well within their rights to clarify whether the movement agrees or disagrees with those acts.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Police corruption is not relevant here. What's relevant is senseless destruction and violence by occupies.

i know, you'd like to ignore this as it quite succinctly proves your point to be null and void.

unless you are saying that as a member of society (whatever nationality), you agree with all the crimes various other people commit under it's name ...

davoxx · 13-02-2012 2:15pm

Maxton Sour Misogynist wrote: »

So do the majority of the Occupy protesters/supporters see a light at the end of the tunnel?

i'm sure there is light at the end ... but how long is the tunnel and for whom is the light?

that's the real question.

then the follow up would be, how long before we enter another tunnel?

southsiderosie · 13-02-2012 3:27pm

If you think someone is trolling or a re-reg, please notify the mods - don't clutter the thread with it. It will only get you infracted.

Let's focus on the actual issues and not individual posters, please.

SSR

Godge · 13-02-2012 3:34pm

davoxx wrote: »

i read it, my point was that there are police officers that break the law as well, though the police establishment is officially against that..

And when police officers break the law, other police officers enforce the law against them. They are subject to the courts and they are removed from the gardai.

This is not a new phenonemon

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/five-sacked-from-garda-following-court-convictions-57717.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/three-gardai-fired-from-the-force-in-just-one-month-2264321.html

2007 and 2010 stories of dismissals from the gardai for your education. There is also a garda ombudsman in place to consider complaints about the gardai.

http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/

http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/GSOC/Five-yearReport2012.pdf

The Ombudsman has taken action in many cases - see extracts below. Nut even more interestingly, the Gardai themselves have referred cases to the Ombudsman so in the case of illegal activity or activity that may not be illegal but that it worthy of complaint, there are remedies available and the gardai themselves take part in the process.

"The Commission has forwarded 111 files to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has directed prosecutions in 29 cases involving 42 defendants. "

"The Commission has forwarded 89 files to the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána with a recommendation that he consider disciplinary processes. "

"The Commission has responded to 650 referrals from the Garda Síochána under Section 102 of the Act. "

davoxx wrote: »

i suppose if it was a co-ordinated act of violence as opposed to random, you'd feel better? maybe thought out acts of vandalism is okay?

unless occupy actively encourages violence, the acts of a few protesters is not reflective of the entire movement.

Right, you are the one who compared violence perpetrated by Occupy protesters to illegal acts committed by police forces. I have illustrated the clear ways in which police officers in Ireland are investigated and penalised for such offences. Given that it is you who tried to justify the two as being the same, maybe you could outline what procedures the Occupy movement has in place to deal with violence or other illegal activity (say someone pocketing donations, for example) that takes place by people acting in its name.

If you are not able to outline how this happens, your analogy fails and we are left with the problem of the condoning by Occupy of violence through inaction against those who commit it in their name.

davoxx · 13-02-2012 4:44pm

Godge wrote: »

<snip - off topic nonsense about gardai>

wow, thanks for the selective data on the irish policing force.
though you've forgotten the prior history of the irish police force as well as their original complaints board. in fact i could pull many holes in your selective representation of the irish policing force, though this is not the thread for it, so i'm going have to ignore your irrelevant yarn ...

and don't worry about my education, worry about your own first.

Godge wrote: »

Right, you are the one who compared violence perpetrated by Occupy protesters to illegal acts committed by police forces.

well illegal acts are, well illegal acts and both are illegal acts, you can see the similarity there.
what i was actually comparing was the occupy movement to police forces.

Godge wrote: »

I have illustrated the clear ways in which police officers in Ireland are investigated and penalised for such offences.

but you did not define 'penalised', everyone has their own definition, singularly with regan's world peace for americans only, which you agree is world peace ...

Godge wrote: »

Given that it is you who tried to justify the two as being the same,

i never justified anything. i'm sure of that. i said that one rotten apple does not a barrel of cider make. i do not support acts of violence.

please stop making false claims of what i said, if you can not interpret or paraphrase correctly what i say/do/imply/reference or basically type, please stop.

Godge · 13-02-2012 6:48pm

davoxx wrote: »

wow, thanks for the selective data on the irish policing force.
though you've forgotten the prior history of the irish police force as well as their original complaints board. in fact i could pull many holes in your selective representation of the irish policing force, though this is not the thread for it, so i'm going have to ignore your irrelevant yarn ...

and don't worry about my education, worry about your own first.

well illegal acts are, well illegal acts and both are illegal acts, you can see the similarity there.
what i was actually comparing was the occupy movement to police forces.

but you did not define 'penalised', everyone has their own definition, singularly with regan's world peace for americans only, which you agree is world peace ...

i never justified anything. i'm sure of that. i said that one rotten apple does not a barrel of cider make. i do not support acts of violence.

please stop making false claims of what i said, if you can not interpret or paraphrase correctly what i say/do/imply/reference or basically type, please stop.

Ok, you were comparing the occupy movement to police forces, we were agreeing on that.

I then asked you what mechanisms the occupy movement had to deal with its own miscreants, in the same way that the Irish police force (and others around the world), deal with theirs.

you then attempt in this post to somehow limit your comparison. Well, I am sorry, logical argument doesn't work like that. If you want to put it another way, I will say it like this.

(1) All movements and organisations, whether they are the Occupy movement or the gardai, have persons (bad apples) within them that commit illegal acts
(2) Unlike the gardai who condemn such behaviour by their members and have procedures in place to discipline, remove and bring the full force of the law against their members, the occupy movement's defenders refuse to even condemn such actions and behaviour, some of them coming on here to defend and excuse it.

You made the point (1) that the two are the same, unfortunately, you will not accept (2) that they are different, but while (1) could apply to any organisation, the differences exposed by (2) are what make organisations and movements credible.

I am not interpreting or paraphrasing what you say, I am just exposing the logical inconsistencies, implications and contradictions of your post. To put it another different way, you are saying that rotten apples and fresh oranges are the same because they are round and nothing else matters, end of story, don't want to hear anything else. I am saying, yes, they are similar because they are round but there is more to it than that, they are different because one tastes a lot better than the other. You then say that I am interpreting you because I point out the differences between rotten apples and fresh oranges.

FreudianSlippers · 13-02-2012 6:56pm

I have to agree with Godge here. I pointed out that the Occupy Portland group carried out senseless destruction to local businesses and vehicles.

What does that have to do with police officers breaking the law?

hatrickpatrick · 13-02-2012 7:11pm

Godge wrote:

And when police officers break the law, other police officers enforce the law against them. They are subject to the courts and they are removed from the gardai.

LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Code_of_Silence

I'm sorry but I have family connections in the Garda Ombudsman and if you think the Gardai are happy to shop their colleagues, think again.
Do you remember the recent case in which several Gardai were illegally and seriously assaulting a member of the public, while another back at base deliberately diverted a CCTV camera in order to get rid of the evidence?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1108/1224307207563.html

This is not intending to bash all police officers, but seriously if you're going to claim that they have a moral high ground to the occupy protesters you're seriously deluded.

The behavior of the police across the United States in response to the Occupy movement has been an absolutely monumental disgrace of epic proportions, and the fact that none of the officers who have been filmed brutalizing unarmed protesters will likely end up in front of a judge is something which should terrify anyone in the United States who desires to live in a democratic society.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have to agree with Godge here. I pointed out that the Occupy Portland group carried out senseless destruction to local businesses and vehicles.

What does that have to do with police officers breaking the law?

It's an analogy. Some police officers are pr*cks, but that's no excuse to hate the entire concept of the police force. Likewise, some Occupiers are pr*cks, but that's no excuse to bash the entire movement as a whole.

Did you honestly not get the point he was making?

hatrickpatrick · 13-02-2012 7:28pm

Maxton Sour Misogynist wrote: »

I know we are going through very tough times but I do see a light at the end of the tunnel, there will be economic recovery (when exactly is the $1 million question).

So do the majority of the Occupy protesters/supporters see a light at the end of the tunnel?

In terms of the economy? Yes.
But for me at least, this isn't about the economy itself. It's about the government corporate axis which robs us, the ordinary people, of our right to self government.
And that will continue whether the economy booms or busts. I'm sure for some, Occupy is an ecomonic protest purely about economics. For me it's about the fact that we don't live in a democracy, we live in a world of weighted voting, where who you know and how much you can bribe them with determines the weighting of your voice.

That is what I want to see changing.

With regard to light at the end of the tunnel, I believe we genuinely have entered a phase in which humanity is waking up and starting to seriously rebel against that structure. Occupy is an example. Anonymous is an example. Wikileaks is an example. The Spanish protests are an example. The Arab Spring is a prime example - who would have thought so many regimes would fall in such quick succession?

Sure, I agree we don't know where it will go, but I am excited and delighted (Gay Byrne

) to be living in an age where, finally, we might actually see the general population in control of their own countries as opposed to a social elite who up until now have run it for themselves, with any benefit or harm to the rest of us being merely an irrelevant side effect in their eyes.

davoxx · 13-02-2012 7:28pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have to agree with Godge here. I pointed out that the Occupy Portland group carried out senseless destruction to local businesses and vehicles.

What does that have to do with police officers breaking the law?

well, since you are adamant to ignore the relevance of my post, i'll flip it ...

what does some random people committing crimes have to do with occupy movement?

Godge · 13-02-2012 7:31pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Code_of_Silence

I'm sorry but I have family connections in the Garda Ombudsman and if you think the Gardai are happy to shop their colleagues, think again.
Do you remember the recent case in which several Gardai were illegally and seriously assaulting a member of the public, while another back at base deliberately diverted a CCTV camera in order to get rid of the evidence?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1108/1224307207563.html

This is not intending to bash all police officers, but seriously if you're going to claim that they have a moral high ground to the occupy protesters you're seriously deluded.

The behavior of the police across the United States in response to the Occupy movement has been an absolutely monumental disgrace of epic proportions, and the fact that none of the officers who have been filmed brutalizing unarmed protesters will likely end up in front of a judge is something which should terrify anyone in the United States who desires to live in a democratic society.

I provided links to the Garda Ombudsman's Report and to reliable newspaper reports of cases which showed that there are processes for dealing with misbehaviour within the Gardai. You provided a link to an Irish Times report where the Garda Ombudsman had got convictions which only supports my assertion that gardai have a process for dealing with such incidents.

You provided a link to Wikipedia and mentioned family connections. Great.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's an analogy. Some police officers are pr*cks, but that's no excuse to hate the entire concept of the police force. Likewise, some Occupiers are pr*cks, but that's no excuse to bash the entire movement as a whole.

Did you honestly not get the point he was making?

Its an analogy. The gardai and Occupiers both have miscreants within their ranks but while gardai get disciplined, fired and convicted with the organisation assisting in this, nobody from Occupy will even condemn the violent behaviour of their members.

Did you honestly not get the point I was making?

hatrickpatrick · 13-02-2012 7:46pm

Godge wrote: »

I provided links to the Garda Ombudsman's Report and to reliable newspaper reports of cases which showed that there are processes for dealing with misbehaviour within the Gardai. You provided a link to an Irish Times report where the Garda Ombudsman had got convictions which only supports my assertion that gardai have a process for dealing with such incidents.

You provided a link to Wikipedia and mentioned family connections. Great.

Ok, I'll get you some decent newspaper articles about this later on when I have more time. Look at the incidents caught on camera in the States, the "internal investigations" which followed and have so far failed to discipline a single abusive officer in any of the Occupy protests.

BTW, I also linked an article which cited a case where a gardai back at base obstructed justice by interfering with a CCTV camera which should have recorded footage of other gardai beating the sh*t out of a member of the public. And yet you suggest that the police will root out abusive members in their ranks? Do you want more examples?

Its an analogy. The gardai and Occupiers both have miscreants within their ranks but while gardai get disciplined, fired and convicted with the organisation assisting in this, nobody from Occupy will even condemn the violent behaviour of their members.

Did you honestly not get the point I was making?

Occupiers will get convicted too if they are arrested and brought to court. That still doesn't answer the fact that police generally do not condemn the behavior of fellow police officers. Again, see the growing list of brutality incidents in the US and the resounding silence from the police AND government officials over it.

Godge · 13-02-2012 7:53pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

BTW, I also linked an article which cited a case where a gardai back at base obstructed justice by interfering with a CCTV camera which should have recorded footage of other gardai beating the sh*t out of a member of the public. And yet you suggest that the police will root out abusive members in their ranks? Do you want more examples?

.

But the garda only attempted to obstruct justice, he didn't succeed - they were all convicted, including him. That means some other garda must have caught him at it and shopped him!!!!! Only makes my point that while there are some rotten apples, they get caught and dealt with.

Still waiting for the condemnation of Occupy violence.

davoxx · 13-02-2012 7:56pm

Godge wrote: »

Ok, you were comparing the occupy movement to police forces, we were agreeing on that.

i was.

Godge wrote: »

I then asked you what mechanisms the occupy movement had to deal with its own miscreants, in the same way that the Irish police force (and others around the world), deal with theirs.

good question, not really relevant, the relevant question is why were you not screaming that the police force must be closed down, and that it serves not good, based on the actions of a few individuals claiming to be acting on behalf of the police force.

you went of on a tangent by looking for an excuse then applying it backwards to make a reason.

Godge wrote: »

you then attempt in this post to somehow limit your comparison. Well, I am sorry, logical argument doesn't work like that.

you should be, you've being doing it wrong. remember your selective use of "world peace" ... but you can ignore than again, since it suits you.

Godge wrote: »

If you want to put it another way, I will say it like this.

i really don't, but we'll run with it ...

Godge wrote: »

(1) All movements and organisations, whether they are the Occupy movement or the gardai, have persons (bad apples) within them that commit illegal acts

we can assume that to be possible

Godge wrote: »

(2) Unlike the gardai who condemn such behaviour by their members and have procedures in place to discipline, remove and bring the full force of the law against their members, the occupy movement's defenders refuse to even condemn such actions and behaviour, some of them coming on here to defend and excuse it.

unlike? unlike what? so you are now claiming that the occupy support such behaviour ... i want a link to show that the support such acts of violence, you know unlike the gardai ...

Godge wrote: »

You made the point (1) that the two are the same, unfortunately, you will not accept (2) that they are different, but while (1) could apply to any organisation, the differences exposed by (2) are what make organisations and movements credible.

you tripped yourself up there bub, see my reply to your point two.

Godge wrote: »

I am not interpreting or paraphrasing what you say, I am just exposing the logical inconsistencies, implications and contradictions of your post.

no, you are doing neither, you are incorrectly representing my posts as justifying violence. there is no logical inconsistencies in what i typed, only in what you incorrectly assumed.

Godge wrote: »

To put it another different way, you are saying that rotten apples and fresh oranges are the same because they are round and nothing else matters,

you are right, they are fruit, that's exactly the opposite of what i'm saying

Godge wrote: »

end of story, don't want to hear anything else.

i do, but i'm sick of hearing that world peace is only for americans and that this is world peace, with dead babies and clubbed seals and fresh squeezed wholesome patriotic freedom juice made from oranges.

Godge wrote: »

I am saying, yes, they are similar because they are round but there is more to it than that, they are different because one tastes a lot better than the other.

some like cider more than oj too ... and one is citrus and the other is rotten also the orange is orange in colour ...

Godge wrote: »

You then say that I am interpreting you because I point out the differences between rotten apples and fresh oranges.

that apples are apples and oranges are not apples? sounds like you're comparing apples and oranges ...

maybe if you were comparing apples to apples, you know people to err people, then i'd still have no idea what you are trying to say ...

davoxx · 13-02-2012 8:07pm

Godge wrote: »

Its an analogy. The gardai and Occupiers both have miscreants within their ranks but while gardai get disciplined, fired and convicted with the organisation assisting in this, nobody from Occupy will even condemn the violent behaviour of their members.

google is your friend ...
http://theoccupationparty.org/statement-on-violence-at-occupy-oakland-move-in-day-march-and-demonstration

and just to test your 'education' on the gardai ...
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/3780
whatever happened to that guy?

Godge wrote: »

Did you honestly not get the point I was making?

yeah, you're making up stuff to discredit occupy movement ... we get it.

Einhard · 13-02-2012 8:15pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Do you remember the recent case in which several Gardai were illegally and seriously assaulting a member of the public, while another back at base deliberately diverted a CCTV camera in order to get rid of the evidence?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1108/1224307207563.html

Weren't the officers prosecuted, convicted and, if memory serves me correctly, imprisoned? Which I think supports Godge's point.

hatrickpatrick · 14-02-2012 12:59am

Einhard wrote: »

Weren't the officers prosecuted, convicted and, if memory serves me correctly, imprisoned? Which I think supports Godge's point.

Actually it doesn't. The Ombudsman investigated that case and brought the charges. Godge was suggesting that other police officers would rat on their colleagues for breaking the law, whereas in this particular case we have an example of someone who saw his colleagues breaking the law and trying to cover up for them.

I am merely dismantling Godge's assertion that the cops have some sort of moral high ground. He suggests Occupy closes ranks to defend wrongdoers and police officers don't, I am pointing out that, in fact, police officers do indeed.

AlekSmart · 14-02-2012 1:12am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I am merely dismantling Godge's assertion that the cops have some sort of moral high ground. He suggests Occupy closes ranks to defend wrongdoers and police officers don't, I am pointing out that, in fact, police officers do indeed.

This is an odd interpretation on Godge's illustrative responses to the counter arguement.

Maybe I'm just dim,but I fail to note any seeking of high-ground in the posts,moral or otherwise,all I'm seeing is links to factual reports of Garda Accountability in action....is this not good ????

14-02-2012 1:35am

Is 'clutching at straws' an official directive for members of the occupy movement?

southsiderosie · 14-02-2012 3:45am

This thread is drifting away from the question of the Occupy Movement's objectives and what people think of them. Snarky one-liners don't help.

Let's try to stay on topic, please.

SSR

Godge · 14-02-2012 10:45am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Actually it doesn't. The Ombudsman investigated that case and brought the charges. Godge was suggesting that other police officers would rat on their colleagues for breaking the law, whereas in this particular case we have an example of someone who saw his colleagues breaking the law and trying to cover up for them.

I am merely dismantling Godge's assertion that the cops have some sort of moral high ground. He suggests Occupy closes ranks to defend wrongdoers and police officers don't, I am pointing out that, in fact, police officers do indeed.

Ah, you did miss the point. I was saying that the gardai have procedures in place (and that includes the Garda Ombudsman, you may have missed the links and quotations from the Garda Ombudsman's Report) to deal with miscreants and that demonstrates a certain attitude to miscreants i.e. they are not tolerated or condoned. A further part of the argument was that the Garda Commissioner referred cases directly to the Ombudsman the details of which I also linked to and which you have not been able to refute.

A similar approach from Occupy would see them reporting their miscreants to the relevant authorities. Some hope of that which demonstrates the difference. How anyone can say that the Gardai with the convictions secured in recent years against their members as well as their co-operation with the Garda Ombudsman can be compared to the Occupy Movement with their tacit tolerance of violence is beyond me. It is not so long ago that we had one of the defenders of Occupy saying in one of the threads that if the Central Bank decided to enforce its legitimate private property rights (remember you defend private property rights, hatrick) that there would be violence and riots.

davoxx · 14-02-2012 1:02pm

Einhard wrote: »

Weren't the officers prosecuted, convicted and, if memory serves me correctly, imprisoned? Which I think supports Godge's point.

internally by the same police force? no, well that godge's point null and voided ...

20Cent · 14-02-2012 1:04pm

Godge wrote: »

Ah, you did miss the point. I was saying that the gardai have procedures in place (and that includes the Garda Ombudsman, you may have missed the links and quotations from the Garda Ombudsman's Report) to deal with miscreants and that demonstrates a certain attitude to miscreants i.e. they are not tolerated or condoned. A further part of the argument was that the Garda Commissioner referred cases directly to the Ombudsman the details of which I also linked to and which you have not been able to refute.

A similar approach from Occupy would see them reporting their miscreants to the relevant authorities. Some hope of that which demonstrates the difference. How anyone can say that the Gardai with the convictions secured in recent years against their members as well as their co-operation with the Garda Ombudsman can be compared to the Occupy Movement with their tacit tolerance of violence is beyond me. It is not so long ago that we had one of the defenders of Occupy saying in one of the threads that if the Central Bank decided to enforce its legitimate private property rights (remember you defend private property rights, hatrick) that there would be violence and riots.

Considering the numbers of people involved and the provocation by the police Occupy has been a remarkably peaceful movement. You seem to be saying that Occupy should just disband because of some bad behavior by a tiny minority! The movement is very non violent and calls for non violent means this has been demonstrated repeatedly.

Inclusion · 14-02-2012 1:13pm

20Cent wrote: »

Considering the numbers of people involved and the provocation by the police Occupy has been a remarkably peaceful movement. You seem to be saying that Occupy should just disband because of some bad behavior by a tiny minority! The movement is very non violent and calls for non violent means this has been demonstrated repeatedly.

Not true. What about the Non-payment of the Household Charge demo at which I was present at City Hall here in Galway when Occupy Galway members stormed into the chamber ? Then stood there chanting like some kind of cult?
(that was cringeworthy to witness) Granted there was nobody hurt, but it was violent and could have ended in injury. The videos are available and you can clearly see each and every one of those that emerged are ALL Occupy members.
Because of this myself and others have withdrawn our support for the Household charge campaign as we will not be associated with people who act in this manner with absolutely no regard or respect for anybody, including the other protestors who wished to do so peacefully.
They may despise politicians but protest through peaceful means is the only way to go.
Occupy Galway are NOT about peaceful protest.

Worldwide Occupy Movement?

Comments