Fire in Cathedral sq.

merlante · 22-03-2008 6:49pm #1

The fire brigade were putting out a fire in Cathedral sq. around 6pm. I doubt it'll make You Decor-like headlines, but here's a few pics anyway.

flickr

Sully · 22-03-2008 6:54pm

Seems to be a common place for fires! Id imagine its squatters!

portlairge · 22-03-2008 7:24pm

Sully wrote: »

Seems to be a common place for fires! Id imagine its squatters!

it was quiet a serious fire inside and there was nobody inside thankfully and as far as i can recall there has not been a fire in this area for a couple of years now.. so its not really a common place for this

Roen · 22-03-2008 7:58pm

It's a lovely area of the city, I'd love to be able to afford a gaff there.

Cabaal · 22-03-2008 8:33pm

Sully wrote: »

Seems to be a common place for fires! Id imagine its squatters!

this sounds abit right,

TheFlatulator · 22-03-2008 8:45pm

i used to live next down in the done up the apartment in no. 1, i can't say that i saw scuatters in there...

That was a listed building... the place was empty enough, if would have to have had an accelerant of some sort.. alcohol or something else...

merlante · 22-03-2008 9:26pm

Roen wrote: »

It's a lovely area of the city, I'd love to be able to afford a gaff there.

It's affordable to rent, but not to buy I'm sure.

TheFlatulator · 22-03-2008 10:12pm

i used to €635 a month whilst sharing with one other person in No: 1 flat 1 Catherdral sq. that was a done up flat so it cost more

JohnC. · 22-03-2008 11:28pm

I know someone who used to live in the upstairs flat next door, with the red door in some of those pics. Didn't seem that good a place.

somebaldyfela · 23-03-2008 1:15am

TheFlatulator wrote: »

i used to €635 a month whilst sharing with one other person in No: 1 flat 1 Catherdral sq. that was a done up flat so it cost more

The ground floor one to the left of the burnt building?if so i used to live in the exact same flat!

TheFlatulator · 23-03-2008 3:54pm

somebaldyfela wrote: »

The ground floor one to the left of the burnt building?if so i used to live in the exact same flat!

lol... its been 5 years now since I was there, I was sharing with a woman called Mary... my room was the one that was with the window facing the street

somebaldyfela · 23-03-2008 4:50pm

TheFlatulator wrote: »

lol... its been 5 years now since I was there, I was sharing with a woman called Mary... my room was the one that was with the window facing the street

me too haha!i was living there from around sept 2000 t0 january 2001

Sully · 23-03-2008 7:14pm

How about you guys take it to PM eh? :P Do you really want people knowing your life story!?

Dan39 · 27-03-2008 2:49pm

As you probably know by now it's John Roberts' former home.

Julian Walton was on Deise AM yesterday, very upset!

navalus · 08-04-2008 3:36pm

It was the Bishops Palace originally, dates back to Elizabethan times, and was later converted into two houses.

lostexpectation · 08-04-2008 5:13pm

i'd say developers

_FRANK_ · 09-04-2008 7:52pm

i used to squat saying that squatters did it is just jumping to conclusions.if you need to squat it is for the want of somewhere safe and dry to sleep/live.so burning your squat to the ground must mean that there are more buildings to squat/burn in waterford.rough guess though and a safe bet is that arsonists did it or maybe i'm jumping to conclusions.i was squatting in cork a few years ago and while i was out the cops came in and burnt it down.in the morning i was woken up downstairs in another squat by cops trying to tell me that i burned it down.apperantly i had left some candles on while i was away.i left the squat in the mid afternoon.maybe we have a serial arsonist cop on our hands.sorry to hear about the building it's one of my favorite parts of the city.

Sully · 09-04-2008 8:55pm

_FRANK_ wrote: »

i used to squat saying that squatters did it is just jumping to conclusions.if you need to squat it is for the want of somewhere safe and dry to sleep/live.so burning your squat to the ground must mean that there are more buildings to squat/burn in waterford.rough guess though and a safe bet is that arsonists did it or maybe i'm jumping to conclusions.i was squatting in cork a few years ago and while i was out the cops came in and burnt it down.in the morning i was woken up downstairs in another squat by cops trying to tell me that i burned it down.apperantly i had left some candles on while i was away.i left the squat in the mid afternoon.maybe we have a serial arsonist cop on our hands.sorry to hear about the building it's one of my favorite parts of the city.

Its happened before in Waterford that squaters managed to burn down a building accidently so I assumed the same happened here

merlante · 09-04-2008 9:18pm

Sully wrote: »

Its happened before in Waterford that squaters managed to burn down a building accidently so I assumed the same happened here

I don't know, there's been a few particularly malignant scumbags in the area during the night over the past couple of weeks. After the fire there was quite a bit of vandalism on cars parked in the square and plants growing there. Luke Wadding didn't escape some mild vandalism either.

They're not the usual kids that hang around there from time to time.

_FRANK_ · 10-04-2008 9:48am

Sully wrote: »

Its happened before in Waterford that squaters managed to burn down a building accidently so I assumed the same happened here

oh yea i wonder who let you have that information wasn't the cops was it?

Sully · 10-04-2008 11:18am

_FRANK_ wrote: »

oh yea i wonder who let you have that information wasn't the cops was it?

Nope it was the Waterford People. It was published in one of there papers that circulates through Waterford City & County. Im sure it was in the Waterford News & Star and maybe even the Munster Express. It was around the time U Decor burnt down, the bus outside doolys went on fire and then the building across from the forum went on fire.

So yes, it has happened before in Waterford and its publicly known. Its nothing secret.

Sully · 10-04-2008 11:19am

merlante wrote: »

I don't know, there's been a few particularly malignant scumbags in the area during the night over the past couple of weeks. After the fire there was quite a bit of vandalism on cars parked in the square and plants growing there. Luke Wadding didn't escape some mild vandalism either.

They're not the usual kids that hang around there from time to time.

Ah okay. Probably is. If you spot these people hanging around you should call the cops and try and get them moved on. Dont want scumbags buring buildings or vandalising the place!

_FRANK_ · 10-04-2008 2:29pm

Sully wrote: »

Nope it was the Waterford People. It was published in one of there papers that circulates through Waterford City & County. Im sure it was in the Waterford News & Star and maybe even the Munster Express. It was around the time U Decor burnt down, the bus outside doolys went on fire and then the building across from the forum went on fire.

So yes, it has happened before in Waterford and its publicly known. Its nothing secret.

have to stop you there where do you think the papers get their information?it's not from reporters on the scene.don't believe everything you read in the papers.it's far to easy for the cops to say oh squatters did it when they don't have a clue,then when the real people are caught,well in peoples minds its still the squatters who did it right?why?because the papers said so.

squatters have no rights in this country unlike the uk.squatters rights were introduced there after the 2nd world war because of lack of housing after the soliders came home,however,the irish constitution does state that every irish citizen has a right to an abode.just some info there for any future squatters out there.

besides the fact still remains the cops or the papers do not know who burnt this house down and i still have yet to meet or see a squatter up in court for burning their squat down.

Sully · 10-04-2008 4:22pm

They know it was squatters because they were at the scene and admitted to causing the fire...

_FRANK_ · 10-04-2008 6:09pm

my god get a grip man!!! here's your story

I saw 25 years of hard work go up in smoke&#8217;

THE cause of an extensive fire that completely gutted the You D&#233;cor premises in Waterford last week is still unknown.
It is the second time in eight years that the premises, on Thomas Street, have been hit by a blaze.

According to owner Peter Freeman, a concrete bunker installed after the last fire stopped the extensive paint range stocked at the store adding to the fire, which is thought to have started in the front office section of the building.

&#8220;It looks like it was accidental but we won&#8217;t know for certain until the forensics are back in the next few days,&#8221; said Peter.

&#8220;I was in Paris when it happened. I was watching 25 years of hard work going up in smoke on television,&#8221; explained Peter.

Such was the extent of the damage, the front wall and roof of the building were demolished on Monday morning last, as they posed a health and safety risk.

&#8220;We&#8217;re discussing options for a temporary premises and showroom at the moment,&#8221; said Peter.

The long-term plan is to rebuild at the current site but this could take up to six months.

In the meantime, it will be a number of weeks before the business is up and running. However, Peter has vowed that all the orders made will be looked after.

The 11 full time staff members, employed at the kitchen and bedroom manufacturing company, are currently on fully paid holiday.

The fire started at approximately 6pm last Thursday. Nobody was injured despite the large number of apartments in the area.

However, it caused traffic mayhem and disruption to nearby homes as firefighters battled to get it under control.

The road remained cordoned off all last weekend as a technical examination of the site was carried off.

The historic Downe&#8217;s pub located quite near the scene suffered smoke damage and remained closed over the weekend.

Meanwhile, two other fires quite close to the You D&#233;cor site are under investigation by garda&#237;.

&#8220;The three fires are being investigated separately at the moment,&#8221; explained Sgt Larry Langton.

The second fire occurred when a tourist bus was set on alight outside Dooley&#8217;s Hotel at

4.10 early Friday morning.

The third took place at 2pm in derelict buildings in The Glen, where a number of homeless people had been squatting.

Anyone with information should contact Waterford garda&#237; on (051) 305300.

so straight from sgt larry langton the third fire took place in derelict buildings in the glen.where a number of homeless people HAD been squatting.

this fire in the square you say was started by squatters call the number above i will wage you 10,000 euro the cops have made no arrests and are unaware of the whereabouts of the culprits of this fire.

_FRANK_ · 10-04-2008 6:29pm

and just to stick it in a bit further to your miscalculations here's the full story as it was printed.

A major fire has devastated the former house of the famous architect John Roberts in the inner city of Waterford last night. The blaze, which was reported around midnight, did destroy much of the old three-storey building on Cathedral Square, opposite Christchurch Cathedral, right in centre of the most ancient part of the city. The old Roberts-House, which bears a blue plaque in memory of Waterford's great architect, has stood empty for some time, as the area is due for re-development. The adjacent buildings to the left and right are also unoccupied at the present time and might have received some minor damage.

Three units of Waterford City Fire Brigade attended the scene and brought the fire under control. There has been no damage to Christchurch Cathedral, but the Fire Brigade cordoned off the area for the time being and will keep a watch in place, to prevent the fire from reigniting.

The burned-out building used to be the family home of John Roberts (1712-1796), who during the 18th century designed and built most of Waterford's famous landmark buildings, such as City Hall and Theatre Royal, the Bishop's Palace (now motor tax office), the house of William Morris (now seat of the Chamber of Commerce), and of course (the Anglican) Christchurch Cathedral and the Catholic Cathedral of the Holy Trinity. Waterford, Ireland's oldest city, is indeed the only place in the world where the same architect designed and built two cathedrals (using different styles) for different religious faith communities.

Last night's blaze, whose cause is at this time unknown, was the second major fire in Waterford's inner city in less than three weeks. On the 6th of the month an even larger and more devastating fire had engulfed and destroyed a commercial building on Thomas Street.

end quote.no mention of squatters

Sully · 10-04-2008 10:08pm

Where you getting those quotes from? I dont have the paper anymore and it was either the News & Start (which is online IIRC) and the Waterford People (which ISNT online IIRC). Im very sure that one of the paper said it was as a result of squatters accidentally.

You seem very defensive over something small. Its not like people were named.

jdb66 · 11-04-2008 4:02am

Sully wrote: »

They know it was squatters because they were at the scene and admitted to causing the fire...

Who knows it was squatters?

If they were at the scene and admitted the offence,do you not think they would have been arrested there and then?

Who's you're source of this information?

jdb66 · 11-04-2008 4:18am

Sully wrote: »

Its happened before in Waterford that squaters managed to burn down a building accidently so I assumed the same happened here

So next time there's a fire in the city we can all safely assume it was the squatters that caused it.:rolleyes:

Sully · 11-04-2008 7:22am

jdb66 wrote: »

Who knows it was squatters?

If they were at the scene and admitted the offence,do you not think they would have been arrested there and then?

Who's you're source of this information?

Did you read my post at all?

Btw, the fire was caused accidently from what I recall.

jdb66 wrote: »

So next time there's a fire in the city we can all safely assume it was the squatters that caused it.:rolleyes:

Did I say that? No I didnt.
Did I emply that? No I didnt.
Do I mean that? No I dont.

:rolleyes:

_FRANK_ · 11-04-2008 3:01pm

Sully wrote: »

You seem very defensive over something small. Its not like people were named.

well you are naming a group of people,pigeonholing them with quotes like "i'd imagine it was squatters!" or "Its happened before in Waterford that squaters managed to burn down a building accidently so I assumed the same happened here"
"Assumptions"<mind how you use them!'here you have me thinking all arsonists are squatters'and vice versa well that is misleading thanks to your assumptions.
i have squatted with 300 people at the same time we got an eviction order now you would assume why didn't we just burn the whole place down before the bailiffs and the cops came but no we didn't do that we stood our ground now london is minus 1 listed garden.oh well thats the way the cookie crumbles.
another reason why i think that squatters don't burn down their squats is like where would they sign on from?if you don't have an address you can't sign on.lost weed revenue,loss of free electricty!

Sully · 11-04-2008 4:19pm

I wont be drawn into a debate about the rights and wrongs of ethics. You will definately go ape :P

At the end of the day, I read an article about arsonists in the building on the glen that was burned down and IIRC they started it accidently to get heat. I assumed, and its a safe assumption to say squatters used an un occupied building, that the same happened at this fire.

Sorry if that offended you as a fellow squatter.

_FRANK_ · 11-04-2008 6:47pm

i'm no longer a squatter so no that didn't offend me.i'm not trying to get you into a debate about ethics.at the end of the day we all have freedom of speech and i am using that right.you say it's a safe assumption i say it's an unfair assumption,given the facts surrounding the matter ie.nobody arrested,no suspects and no charges.can i safely assume it was the pope without being challenged on my assumption?all i did was to challenge your assumption,it's not ethics.i saw a fire juggler in waterford i wonder did the squatters start him up.all i can say is god love waterford if there's a squatters convention here.wouldn't be the worst thing to happen waterford especially if they had their convention in rubys.

jdb66 · 11-04-2008 7:08pm

Sully wrote: »

Did you read my post at all?

Btw, the fire was caused accidently from what I recall.

I have read your post,actually and the reply from you above dos'nt really answer the question i asked.

Did I say that? No I didnt.
Did I emply that? No I didnt.
Do I mean that? No I dont.

:rolleyes:

Did i say you did? No i did'nt.

As for what you implied or meant,only you know that answer.

Sully · 11-04-2008 7:24pm

jdb66 wrote: »

Did i say you did? No i did'nt.

Then dont quote my post and make that suggestion.

As for what you implied or meant,only you know that answer.

Its very clear what I said and what I meant. You clearly didnt read the post as the same question was already asked and answered!

Sully · 11-04-2008 7:28pm

_FRANK_ wrote: »

i'm no longer a squatter so no that didn't offend me.i'm not trying to get you into a debate about ethics.at the end of the day we all have freedom of speech and i am using that right.you say it's a safe assumption i say it's an unfair assumption,given the facts surrounding the matter ie.nobody arrested,no suspects and no charges.can i safely assume it was the pope without being challenged on my assumption?all i did was to challenge your assumption,it's not ethics.i saw a fire juggler in waterford i wonder did the squatters start him up.all i can say is god love waterford if there's a squatters convention here.wouldn't be the worst thing to happen waterford especially if they had their convention in rubys.

Any chance you can type a bit better - im finding it hard to read your post, sorry!

My assumption is based that squatters normaly take over buildings that are not in use and are left lying idle. Normaly near derlict buildings, not proper homes just left idle for a while. IIRC the fire by The Forum was accidently set by squatters trying to get warm (I wish I had the article!) which funnily enough was a building matching the criteria set above. Therefore, I assumed, that it MAY have happened as a result.

We cant say the Pope did it, as the Pope wasnt in Ireland has no history of trespassing or breaking and entry. It would be unusual for that type of person to do such.

jdb66 · 11-04-2008 7:50pm

Sully wrote: »

Then dont quote my post and make that suggestion.

I'll decide for myself what i want to quote,thank's.

Its very clear what I said and what I meant. You clearly didnt read the post as the same question was already asked and answered!

They know it was squatters because they were at the scene and admitted to causing the fire...

From reply #24,it's very clear ok.:rolleyes:

You must have been 100% certain that the above was indeed fact before you posted,or did that get reported in the N&S and you just assumed it to be a factually accurate report?

_FRANK_ · 11-04-2008 7:56pm

Sully wrote: »

Any chance you can type a bit better - im finding it hard to read your post, sorry!

My assumption is based that squatters normaly take over buildings that are not in use and are left lying idle. Normaly near derlict buildings, not proper homes just left idle for a while. IIRC the fire by The Forum was accidently set by squatters trying to get warm (I wish I had the article!) which funnily enough was a building matching the criteria set above. Therefore, I assumed, that it MAY have happened as a result.

We cant say the Pope did it, as the Pope wasnt in Ireland has no history of trespassing or breaking and entry. It would be unusual for that type of person to do such.

well there you go again squatters do not trespass or have to break an entry to gain access to a building.

this is the same typing.

your assumptions are not based on fact.they are wrong.you need to get another set of assumptions.whoever gave you your current assumptions?

you assumed that it MAY have happened as a result based on your assumptions that the buliding was of the same build looked alike apart from location.the squatters oh i see what you're saying it's the arsonists they had deja vu walking pass

Tom:jasus paddy doesn't that look like the building we burned down 2 weeks ago?

Paddy:begor it does hey lets get some petrol and try and get warm

Tom:sure paddy it's only half five.

i'm not sure what type of person the pope is but i find it bizzare that he has the biggest porn collection in the world.so you think that squatters are the type of people to tresspass and break an entry you have alot to learn about squatters until then......

Sully · 11-04-2008 8:57pm

Oh sorry, I didnt realise squatters were given keys and permission from the owner. My bad. Sorry about that.

_FRANK_ · 12-04-2008 11:21am

Sully wrote: »

Oh sorry, I didnt realise squatters were given keys and permission from the owner. My bad. Sorry about that.

i'd like to see your perspective on things but i can't get my head that far up my rectum!

when you claim squatters rights you are not tresspassing and yes squatters do get keys from owners i know i did.

Sully · 12-04-2008 11:47am

_FRANK_ wrote: »

i'd like to see your perspective on things but i can't get my head that far up my rectum!

Really? Sorry to hear that.

when you claim squatters rights you are not tresspassing and yes squatters do get keys from owners i know i did.

I think in a lot of cases, they dont get the keys or get permission. Now afaik going onto someones private property without permission is trespassing.

_FRANK_ · 12-04-2008 12:09pm

Sully wrote: »

Really? Sorry to hear that.

I think in a lot of cases, they dont get the keys or get permission. Now afaik going onto someones private property without permission is trespassing.

yea so how come pat kenny isn't been charged with trespassing?
lmao didn't think pat was that TYPE of person to be a squatter.

so there you have it garda! pat kenny was in ireland at the time has a history of lighting fires and is also a squatter.no.1 suspect as far as sullys presumptions go.

thank god your not a cop we'd have no late late show to watch.

Sully · 12-04-2008 1:28pm

Pat Kennys court case is not finished yet. Plus thats a different type of squatting.

Also, Pay Kenny is not a guard?! :S

_FRANK_ · 12-04-2008 1:44pm

that paragraph was conveyed towards the cops.

could you explain how there are different types of squatting?

the law states once you claim squatters rights you are squatting.

i've never been brought up to the stand in a civil case for a different type of squatting.
i have squatted fields,houses,flats,shops,warehouses and a tree.i told the judge i was squatting in all the previous locations and he agreed that i was indeed squatting,and something about the need for the removel of me from these locations.different judges different places.

unless there is a different genre of "talk show host squatters" out there you are sadly mistaken that there is a different type of squatting.

jdb66 · 12-04-2008 2:00pm

_FRANK_ wrote: »

could you explain how there are different types of squatting?

QUOTE]

Am most interested to hear about these different types of squatting too.

Sully · 12-04-2008 7:29pm

_FRANK_ wrote: »

so there you have it garda pat kenny was in ireland at the time has a history of lighting fires and is also a squatter.no.1 suspect as far as sullys presumptions go.

Again, garda pat kenny?!?!?!

By law, squatting is the one thing maybe. However, you can either squat by breaking into a house and claiming "we have rights, even tho we dont really own the building" or squatting by saying that a piece of land is yours.

In Pats case, and its not finalised with a judge warning him to settle his differences outside of court if he wants to keep his 'idealyic' lifestyle, its over land. Not cause himself and the wife broke into a house and refused to move for the tenant claiming squatting rights.

Anyway, my point is a lot of squatters use run down buildings that are not in use to "live in". Fires can be started accidentlay as a result, and has happened in waterford before, so I stand by my assumption that squatters MAY HAVE started this fire ACCIDENTALY.

I dont give a ****e about rights, or about the fact the guards didnt say it was squatters. I stand by my comment. I also agree with merlante and it could very well be trouble makers in the area. But I suppose using your logic, its not right to assume that either? :rolleyes:

lostexpectation · 12-04-2008 7:35pm

sometimes, owners of buildings purposely leave their buildings unsecure, i the knowldge that people can get int, then accidents happen , who's fault is it? hmmm who benefits?

Sully · 12-04-2008 9:39pm

lostexpectation wrote: »

sometimes, owners of buildings purposely leave their buildings unsecure, i the knowldge that people can get int, then accidents happen , who's fault is it? hmmm who benefits?

Still trespassing. Owner benefits and so do the tresspassers. Could be the case in this fire, who knows?

_FRANK_ · 12-04-2008 11:00pm

Sully wrote: »

Again, garda pat kenny?!?!?!

By law, squatting is the one thing maybe. However, you can either squat by breaking into a house and claiming "we have rights, even tho we dont really own the building" or squatting by saying that a piece of land is yours.

so you think that the law makes a difference between squatting a piece of land and squatting a house?

there is no difference where you are squatting you are still squatting. if you own your land or a house there is no way you can become the squatter of your own land/house.

Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use. Squatting is significantly more common in urban areas than rural areas, especially when urban decay occurs. According to author Robert Neuwirth, there may be as many as one billion squatters globally, or about one of every seven people.[1]quote from wikipedia.

Sully · 13-04-2008 12:09am

Sully wrote: »

Again, garda pat kenny?!?!?!

By law, squatting is the one thing maybe.

Read, Understand, Thanks.

_FRANK_ · 13-04-2008 1:18am

i have read your statement and yes i understand,even though it is very fague.
you still have not answered the question i conveyed to you.

"what other types of squatting are there?"

btw thanks for all your contradictions on this post.

Fire in Cathedral sq.

Comments