‘OCCUPY Wall Street’ protestors on Dame Street

ei.sdraob

20Cent wrote: »

Dame St is a better location not enough room outside the Dail. IFSC is too out of the way not enough passing traffic.

By that reasoning you may as well protest in a field next to the m50, plenty of room and loads of passing traffic :rolleyes:

The people responsible are laughing all the way to the banks with their retirement funds and/or still sitting in the Dail, the people who make decisions going forward are in the Dail too.

20Cent

ei.sdraob wrote: »

By that reasoning you may as well protest in a field next to the m50, plenty of room and loads of passing traffic :rolleyes:

The people responsible are laughing all the way to the banks with their retirement funds and/or still sitting in the Dail, the people who make decisions going forward are in the Dail too.

Foot traffic where people can stop and talk find out more.

True but outside the Dail is just a path no room for 30+ tents.

Anita M.

Since it is getting colder I was thinking, would it not be a nice idea if us ordinary folk were to bring these nice kids some blankets and sleeping mats and better tent material? We would not want any one to get a cold now.

steve9859

20Cent wrote: »

Foot traffic where people can stop and talk find out more.

True but outside the Dail is just a path no room for 30+ tents.

It is a much better location than they have in London, where they are camped outside St Pauls Cathedral. A few banks round there, but nowhere near the financial district, nor near the political centre. The footfall is overwhelmingly tourists, and it is looking like they will get Pauls closed to tourists and worshippers for the first time since the war (which will p*ss a lot of people off).

I know open space from which they would not get immediately evicted is not easy to find, but their location is crap.

So outside the central bank in ireland is a good spot in comparison

Nelson Muntz

Have they actually stated clear goals of the protest yet? Or have they engaged any of the politicians?

Bannasidhe

Anita M. wrote: »

Since it is getting colder I was thinking, would it not be a nice idea if us ordinary folk were to bring these nice kids some blankets and sleeping mats and better tent material? We would not want any one to get a cold now.

Is that an undercurrent of sarcasm I detect?

It may surprise detractors to know that 'ordinary' people are doing just that. I cannot join the protesters in Cork at the occupation so I donated sleeping bags, camping mattresses, camping stoves and gas. Other's I know bring warm food daily- which is being shared with the homeless. 'Ordinary' people have lent/donated tents, all manner of camping/cold weather epuipment/clothes, even laptops for the livestream. Local pubs and restaurants are providing toilet facilities and donating food, hot drinks. I know people who work in the city centre of Cork who drop off flasks of hot water every morning, collect them in the evening so they can bring them back the following morning. People have lent them generators, tents, tarp, cookers, gas, waterproofs, skiwear. Talks on various topics by lecturers from UCC happen nearly every night. Local singers and bands give free concerts. 'Ordinary' people with tech skills have set up a livestream, those with mechanical/electrical skills have got the generator up and working (and fixed it at short notice), set up electric lighting. 'Ordinary' people are rotating in when they have a day off work to allow occupiers to go home and have a shower, do laundry and get warm.
The same is happening in Dame Street - 'ordinary' people are providing the support that allows those who can camp out to keep warm and fed. The fact that Dame street is in its 3rd week shows the level of support from ordinary people is high.

Head The Wall

20Cent wrote: »

A good few work and are there when they are off. Some are unemployed, some come fro a few days then go. Stuff like that.
I’m a businessman. Here’s why I joined Occupy Dame Street
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-im-a-businessman-heres-why-i-joined-occupy-dame-street/

What percentage of the people up there again does this one man represent?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is that an undercurrent of sarcasm I detect?

It may surprise detractors to know that 'ordinary' people are doing just that. I cannot join the protesters in Cork at the occupation so I donated sleeping bags, camping mattresses, camping stoves and gas. Other's I know bring warm food daily- which is being shared with the homeless. 'Ordinary' people have lent/donated tents, all manner of camping/cold weather epuipment/clothes, even laptops for the livestream. Local pubs and restaurants are providing toilet facilities and donating food, hot drinks. I know people who work in the city centre of Cork who drop off flasks of hot water every morning, collect them in the evening so they can bring them back the following morning. People have lent them generators, tents, tarp, cookers, gas, waterproofs, skiwear. Talks on various topics by lecturers from UCC happen nearly every night. Local singers and bands give free concerts. 'Ordinary' people with tech skills have set up a livestream, those with mechanical/electrical skills have got the generator up and working (and fixed it at short notice), set up electric lighting. 'Ordinary' people are rotating in when they have a day off work to allow occupiers to go home and have a shower, do laundry and get warm.
The same is happening in Dame Street - 'ordinary' people are providing the support that allows those who can camp out to keep warm and fed. The fact that Dame street is in its 3rd week shows the level of support from ordinary people is high.

Wouldn't it be great if all these people were so supportive of deserving charities which supported irish people in real need instead of these rent a protest types.

I guarantee the majority of people supporting these protests have mortgages they don't like paying and are just hoping that they may get some solution

Bannasidhe

Head The Wall wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great if all these people were so supportive of deserving charities which supported irish people in real need instead of these rent a protest types.

I guarantee the majority of people supporting these protests have mortgages they don't like paying and are just hoping that they may get some solution

How do you know they don't? You are jumping to some huge conclusions there.

I can only speak for myself and my family/friends but I regularly donate to charities (every month via a direct debit I set up over 11 years ago), I also donate to VdeP, Simon and Share regularly. My son makes a point of donating all of the stuff his kids have grown out of (from clothes to buggies) to the VdeP. He also does voluntary work for charities every chance he gets - and he supports the Occupy movement 100%.

As for your guarantee - I have a mortgage, It's a bit of a struggle but I make my payments every month. I have no arrears. It's a debt I voluntarily took on and have every intention of paying back to the last cent. I have not asked anyone to bail me out - nor do I expect them to. Pity those who borrowed millions to fund their developments and those who recklessly lent them the money don't share my attitude.

Bannasidhe

The Cork Camp:

Liam Mullaney said: “The response has been fantastic, from the Gardaí to the council. We’ve helped them out and they’ve helped us out. We’ve had security here doing nothing at four or five in the morning so they went onto the Grand Parade and picked up rubbish.”
The camp has a solid look to it, with a generator working intermittently, and a central tent structure that houses free, communal food, utensils, drinking water, as well as a laptop, a library and a notice board. “The whole thing can be disassembled in a day,” he said.
As to the question of how long they will stay, he says it is up to the group to decide through consensus. “But if you’re asked to leave then, you would do so peacefully,” according to the activist. At the moment, they are “waiting on advice on the legal status."
He said they have had donations from all manner of people, who have given them money, cookers, tents, blankets, lots of food, hot water and manual labour. They have a wish list online on their Facebook page. “The response is usually within the hour," he said.
He said that members of the public have been very receptive and supportive. He told of one woman in her 60s who stopped her car in the middle of the South Mall, and in tears, told the group about her financial problems and how she felt she had no voice.

http://corkindependent.com/stories/item/5301/2011-42/Occupy-Cork-here-to-stay

Head The Wall

That's very commendable and while not volunteering myself I do contribute financially to charities. It's good to hear there is still compassionate people out there

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Pity those who borrowed millions to fund their developments and those who recklessly lent them the money don't share my attitude.

You may not have noticed but there is a third link you seem to have left out of your chain of blame, that is the people who purchased these houses at the prices they did. Without these purchasers the developers wouldn't have built and the banks wouldn't have lent to the developers to build. I'm not implying that you yourself bought during the last few years but plenty did.

EI_Flyboy

Head The Wall wrote: »

You may not have noticed but there is a third link you seem to have left out of your chain of blame, that is the people who purchased these houses at the prices they did. Without these purchasers the developers wouldn't have built and the banks wouldn't have lent to the developers to build. I'm not implying that you yourself bought during the last few years but plenty did.

They bought their houses under the premise that there would be no bust, bankers, developers and politicians we all screaming buy buy buy. Anyone who Sid otherwise was crapped on from a height. The boom was false advertising so it's hardly fair to lump mortgage holders in with those who pushed them to buy. Everyone should've known better but some have more duty to understand the business they're in knowing most look to them for advice.

Bannasidhe

Head The Wall wrote: »

That's very commendable and while not volunteering myself I do contribute financially to charities. It's good to hear there is still compassionate people out there




You may not have noticed but there is a third link you seem to have left out of your chain of blame, that is the people who purchased these houses at the prices they did. Without these purchasers the developers wouldn't have built and the banks wouldn't have lent to the developers to build. I'm not implying that you yourself bought during the last few years but plenty did.

I did - I bought in 2005! I am lucky that I bought a small, shell of a house, did the internal work with my nephew and son, and have a mortgage of 'only' 1/4 of a million :eek:...(thankfully I have a Tracker...)

I lived through the property bubble in London and saw many people caught in the negative equity trap... recognised the signs....

I do not understand why bailing out the likes of Sean Quinn who took a big punt and lost is acceptable but helping out 'Mary' Quinn who bought a house when prices were artificially inflated by conditions outside her control is deemed to be a 'moral hazard'.

What fuelled the building boom ? Was it ordinary people looking to buy homes or was it generous tax incentives aimed at developers and the buy to rent investors? Who was intended to buy these newly built houses and apartments besides those looking to rent them? People looking for a home of their own...who were left with no choice but to pay the spiralling costs as developers drove up land prices and any house in the sub 150,000 k category was snapped up by aspirant landlords (who, if memory serves were at one point getting over 40% MIRAS as opposed to 20% for the owner/occupier).

Banks lent recklessly to both developers and private home buyers - yes.

But now the debts incurred by the developers have been shifted to the taxpayers - many of whom are the same people who were lent far in excess of the old 3 times your annual salary mortgage touchstone, are faced with ever increasing mortgage rates (which prompted the Financial Regulator to fire a shot across the bows of the banks last week), are hit with income levys, social contributions and awaiting lots of lovely stealth taxes...They are not just struggling to pay the debts they personally incurred - they are expected to pay the debts incurred by the people who (shoddily) built their homes too!

Why are 'ordinary' people being hit with a double whammy while those who would have ridden off into the sunset of tax loopholes had they made profits are being paid for by those same 'ordinary' people?

That to me seems to be a huge moral hazard!

DeVore

To be fair, it wasn't hard maths to see that apartments in crappy areas were selling for 10 times the average wage. People tell me to buy sh*t all the time, and I manage to control myself.

There is a fourth link in the chain though, which no one has mentioned... The German Banks who loaned the money to Anglo. They haven't lost one cent over this, in fact we've been paying extortionate interest to them ever since taking over the debt.

I do support the protest but I wish they were calling for more achievable goals. Quangos, political system reform, bondholder revisitation and more regulation would be my 4 desires.

DeV.

ei.sdraob

DeVore wrote: »

To be fair, it wasn't hard maths to see that apartments in crappy areas were selling for 10 times the average wage. People tell me to buy sh*t all the time, and I manage to control myself.

There is a fourth link in the chain though, which no one has mentioned... The German Banks who loaned the money to Anglo. They haven't lost one cent over this, in fact we've been paying extortionate interest to them ever since taking over the debt.

I do support the protest but I wish they were calling for more achievable goals. Quangos, political system reform, bondholder revisitation and more regulation would be my 4 desires.

DeV.

How dare you blame the Germans, they are an example of perfection itself, clean as saints, can do no wrong and all that.

or so one would gather if you read this forum for any length of time.

DeVore

Bannasidhe, imagine now if you were fiscally responsible and DIDNT buy a home during the madness. You are suggesting that those people now pay a triple whammy? They didnt get a house, they have to bail out the developers and now they have to bail out the home owners?

The perfect moral hazard, the only people who did nothing wrong will end up paying everyone else.

DeV.

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I did - I bought in 2005! I am lucky that I bought a small, shell of a house, did the internal work with my nephew and son, and have a mortgage of 'only' 1/4 of a million :eek:...(thankfully I have a Tracker...)

I lived through the property bubble in London and saw many people caught in the negative equity trap... recognised the signs....

I do not understand why bailing out the likes of Sean Quinn who took a big punt and lost is acceptable but helping out 'Mary' Quinn who bought a house when prices were artificially inflated by conditions outside her control is deemed to be a 'moral hazard'.

What fuelled the building boom ? Was it ordinary people looking to buy homes or was it generous tax incentives aimed at developers and the buy to rent investors? Who was intended to buy these newly built houses and apartments besides those looking to rent them? People looking for a home of their own...who were left with no choice but to pay the spiralling costs as developers drove up land prices and any house in the sub 150,000 k category was snapped up by aspirant landlords (who, if memory serves were at one point getting over 40% MIRAS as opposed to 20% for the owner/occupier).

Banks lent recklessly to both developers and private home buyers - yes.

But now the debts incurred by the developers have been shifted to the taxpayers - many of whom are the same people who were lent far in excess of the old 3 times your annual salary mortgage touchstone, are faced with ever increasing mortgage rates (which prompted the Financial Regulator to fire a shot across the bows of the banks last week), are hit with income levys, social contributions and awaiting lots of lovely stealth taxes...They are not just struggling to pay the debts they personally incurred - they are expected to pay the debts incurred by the people who (shoddily) built their homes too!

Why are 'ordinary' people being hit with a double whammy while those who would have ridden off into the sunset of tax loopholes had they made profits are being paid for by those same 'ordinary' people?

That to me seems to be a huge moral hazard!

The bottom line, and this is harsh, but true, and that is that two wrongs do not make a right. With the developers and bankers, we are at a point in the process which has inevitably come around because of the disastorous decision of the FF government on 30 September 2008 to guarantee the banks. That decision coupled with NAMA, rescued the bondholders, the bankers and the developers. We were promised the cheapest bailout in history but the implementation of the safety net made it the dearest thanks to the removal of moral hazard. And remmeber, that bank guarantee was all our own doing - our European partners were horrified when they heard.

The question for us now, is do we repeat this stupid stupid mistake and do the same for those who recklessly bought houses (and I am sorry but they were reckless, the fact they didn't know they were reckless is like the driver saying I didn't see a speed limit so I thought it was safe to drive at 150kph down a narrow lane). If we bailout the mortgage holders, we will impose a further debt on our children and grandchildren for the mistakes that we have made. Any doubt over whether the government debt is unsustainable will disappear.

We made this bed for ourselves, because it was our government, the one we elected who made the stupid decisions, first to stimulate the boom and then to guarantee the banks.

Bannasidhe

DeVore wrote: »

To be fair, it wasn't hard maths to see that apartments in crappy areas were selling for 10 times the average wage. People tell me to buy sh*t all the time, and I manage to control myself.

There is a fourth link in the chain though, which no one has mentioned... The German Banks who loaned the money to Anglo. They haven't lost one cent over this, in fact we've been paying extortionate interest to them ever since taking over the debt.

I do support the protest but I wish they were calling for more achievable goals. Quangos, political system reform, bondholder revisitation and more regulation would be my 4 desires.

DeV.

Absolutely +1 to the highlighted bit.

DeV - We share the same goals - go talk to them. I did. Yes, at the moment it is still being formulated, so input is required. There is no political think tank working away in the background - no policy makers either. Just angry people who are feeling their way forward many of who have never done anything like this before. A lot of people in Ireland feel ignored and voiceless, the Occupy Movement is attempting to make us visible and create a voice loud enough that calls for reform can't be ignored any longer.

Godge

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

They bought their houses under the premise that there would be no bust, bankers, developers and politicians we all screaming buy buy buy. Anyone who Sid otherwise was crapped on from a height. The boom was false advertising so it's hardly fair to lump mortgage holders in with those who pushed them to buy. Everyone should've known better but some have more duty to understand the business they're in knowing most look to them for advice.

So there is no personal responsibility for the decision you made yourself to buy a house?

As for the politician bit, we elected them, they represent us, so if they told us to buy houses, it was us talking to ourselves, so we only have ourselves to blame.

Bannasidhe

DeVore wrote: »

Bannasidhe, imagine now if you were fiscally responsible and DIDNT buy a home during the madness. You are suggesting that those people now pay a triple whammy? They didnt get a house, they have to bail out the developers and now they have to bail out the home owners?

The perfect moral hazard, the only people who did nothing wrong will end up paying everyone else.

DeV.

No - it's not right.
But perhaps if we hadn't been debt loaded with the bank's liabilities so many people wouldn't be struggling to pay their personal debts....

Godge

DeVore wrote: »

To be fair, it wasn't hard maths to see that apartments in crappy areas were selling for 10 times the average wage. People tell me to buy sh*t all the time, and I manage to control myself.

There is a fourth link in the chain though, which no one has mentioned... The German Banks who loaned the money to Anglo. They haven't lost one cent over this, in fact we've been paying extortionate interest to them ever since taking over the debt.

I do support the protest but I wish they were calling for more achievable goals. Quangos, political system reform, bondholder revisitation and more regulation would be my 4 desires.

DeV.

The FF Government decided to pay them back. Once that decision was made - the Government guarantee of 30 September 2008 and the subsequent nationalisation of Anglo - we were down a certain path and no way to turn around.

History will not be kind to Fianna Fail.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

So there is no personal responsibility for the decision you made yourself to buy a house?

As for the politician bit, we elected them, they represent us, so if they told us to buy houses, it was us talking to ourselves, so we only have ourselves to blame.

If the government fails in its duty to regulate...how is that our fault?
I didn't elect FF, or the PDs, or the Greens - yet they saddled me, my children and my grandchildren with Sean Quinn's debts...how is that my fault?

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

The FF Government decided to pay them back. Once that decision was made - the Government guarantee of 30 September 2008 and the subsequent nationalisation of Anglo - we were down a certain path and no way to turn around.

History will not be kind to Fianna Fail.

Legislation can be repealed...

Scofflaw

DeVore wrote: »

To be fair, it wasn't hard maths to see that apartments in crappy areas were selling for 10 times the average wage. People tell me to buy sh*t all the time, and I manage to control myself.

There is a fourth link in the chain though, which no one has mentioned... The German Banks who loaned the money to Anglo. They haven't lost one cent over this, in fact we've been paying extortionate interest to them ever since taking over the debt.

People may be reluctant to mention them here because then I come along and say "show me some evidence for the involvement of German banks as major lenders to Anglo". Then people have to do a lot of mumbling, because there isn't any, whereas I have lots saying they weren't.

So, same for you - where's your evidence for that claim? Feel free to pull out the now-standard faked Golem/Guido Fawkes "Anglo senior bondholders list", and I'll go through it the usual way for you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Legislation can be repealed...

You cannot repeal the nationalisation of Anglo, that has already happened.

You cannot repeal the guaranteeing of the banks. The clever ones used that to sell on their bonds.

All of that is done, cannot be changed, just pay the bill. We (the government we elected) were incredibly stupid, and there is no way back now. Those like the ULA and Sinn Fein who pretend otherwise are guilty of a lesser crime of creating a false hope. Just like Charlie McCreevy proclaimed the good times would keep on going, those false prophets such as Joe Higgins and Pearse Doherty are promising things that cannot happen.

Head The Wall

So they repeal the legislation and then what, just ask the bondholders who have already received their money to give it back to us. That's just ridiculous thinking.

Personally from speaking to people myself it's generally mortgage holders that support these protests while people like myself who are unhappy with the way things have panned out can see through the ridiculous claims this group are looking for.

Because the claims are so ridiculous it just makes me think that anyone supporting them has an ulterior motive, when a sensible achievable protest comes along I will support it

Godge

Head The Wall wrote: »

So they repeal the legislation and then what, just ask the bondholders who have already received their money to give it back to us. That's just ridiculous thinking.

Personally from speaking to people myself it's generally mortgage holders that support these protests while people like myself who are unhappy with the way things have panned out can see through the ridiculous claims this group are looking for.

Because the claims are so ridiculous it just makes me think that anyone supporting them has an ulterior motive, when a sensible achievable protest comes along I will support it

The biggest problem I have with doing something for mortgage holders is that no matter how big their problems are (and some of them have horrendous problems) very few, if any of them, are worse off than the homeless person being helped out by the Simon Community or the very low-paid renting a kip of a bedsit in Drumcondra.

carveone

Scofflaw wrote: »

People may be reluctant to mention them here because then I come along and say "show me some evidence for the involvement of German banks as major lenders to Anglo". Then people have to do a lot of mumbling, because there isn't any, whereas I have lots saying they weren't.

You mentioned Dr Sheila Killian before in relation to senior bondholders. It looks like she couldn't find out the identities either - at least that's what is implied in this Irish Times article.

I always thought the International Wall Street banks owned much of it but there's no evidence of that either. That Guido "leak" looks like more anti-EU fiction.

As for mortgage holders - my parents bought a house in 1979 just after the end of the last (comparatively small) bubble. They were in negative equity almost immediately. I can't imagine they were delighted with that but long term it was ok as they bought the house as a minimum 20 year family home.

Whatever that's worth....

Scofflaw

carveone wrote: »

You mentioned Dr Sheila Killian before in relation to senior bondholders. It looks like she couldn't find out the identities either - at least that's what is implied in this Irish Times article.

Sure - there's no specific identities known. Sheila Killian came to largely the same conclusions as I've put forward in these forums, and for largely the same reasons. There is no evidence at all for French and German banks as major senior bondholders in Anglo or the other covered institutions. What lines of evidence exist - aggregated accounts from the Central Bank, the results of stress tests, and the statements by German banks themselves - shows no pattern of large exposure to Irish banks in the eurozone. The BIS figures often quoted as showing such a pattern don't - instead they show the extent of the eurozone subsidiaries in the IFSC.

carveone wrote: »

I always thought the International Wall Street banks owned much of it but there's no evidence of that either.

It's funny that people tend to completely ignore the intervention of the US in the form of Geithner in the matter of our bondholders, while equating the intervention of the ECB with German intervention, which it isn't. The aggregate balance sheets of the covered banks show that the covered banks sourced their debt (and deposits) outside the eurozone - that doesn't automatically mean the US and UK, but those are the markets in which the Irish banks have traditionally done business. We also know that our banks were tapping the Fed for emergency liquidity - something that wouldn't have happened without substantial interests in the US.

carveone wrote: »

That Guido "leak" looks like more anti-EU fiction.

Credit where it's due - whoever leaked that list did a neat job of assembling it. It contains enough pinches of truth to work - those institutions listed did hold Anglo debt - while telling a largely fictitious story, because the list is a mix of senior and junior bondholders with all the Irish bondholders carefully removed, and leaked to a British eurosceptic blogger who could be relied on to take the right angle. Pity Guido blew it through showing off his detailed knowledge.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

People may be reluctant to mention them here because then I come along and say "show me some evidence for the involvement of German banks as major lenders to Anglo". Then people have to do a lot of mumbling, because there isn't any, whereas I have lots saying they weren't.

So, same for you - where's your evidence for that claim? Feel free to pull out the now-standard faked Golem/Guido Fawkes "Anglo senior bondholders list", and I'll go through it the usual way for you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The complete bondholder list is hidden from public (of course), maybe you can dig it up @Scofflaw :rolleyes:
but here are some of the lot that we know of that got involved with Anglo, quite a few are German

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

You cannot repeal the nationalisation of Anglo, that has already happened.

You cannot repeal the guaranteeing of the banks. The clever ones used that to sell on their bonds.

All of that is done, cannot be changed, just pay the bill. We (the government we elected) were incredibly stupid, and there is no way back now. Those like the ULA and Sinn Fein who pretend otherwise are guilty of a lesser crime of creating a false hope. Just like Charlie McCreevy proclaimed the good times would keep on going, those false prophets such as Joe Higgins and Pearse Doherty are promising things that cannot happen.

Ok, so we accept what has been done, is done. How do we prevent it happening again without reforms being put in place?

How do we make politicians accountable? By introducing a wide ranging and vague clause into the constitution giving sweeping powers to the executive to hold judicial proceedings? That is what the government is proposing - can we really trust these people to decide what is in the public interest or to clean their own houses - never mind investigate members of the public?

How do we ensure the financial sector is regulated when there is no indication that government has the will to tackle it?

How do we ensure that corruption is henceforth punished with the full rigour of the law?

How do we stop the practice of rewarding incompetence in the public sector?

I grew up during the lean times of the 70s, came to adulthood in the 80s during Charlie 'We must all tighten our belts' Haughey's rein and Thatcher's trickledown economics. Lived through more recessions then I care to remember and I want the cycle to stop. Yet, it seems as though the incompetence and corruption just seems to be spreading like a canker through our society. We went from Haughey's faux-country squire excesses to Bertie's won it on the horses - it's just getting worse....

I honestly do not believe there will be any changes unless we force them. TDs are inoculated from the austerities faced by the majority due to their generous salaries, expanses and guaranteed pensions after 3 years in the Dail.

Some suggestions I would make is that a TD who loses their seat - i.e. has been 'sacked' by the electorate is not automatically entitled to a pension.

That TDs who do manage to hang on til retirement age get one pension only from the state - stop all of this TD's pension plus minister's pension nonsense. If they wish to take out a private pension - that's their own business.

That we decentralise local powers back to the councils - and make them responsible for their local communities, answerable to the local electorate. Removing much of the power vested in the overpaid county managers in the process.

Drastically reduce the number of TDs.

Make the Seanad directly elected - but limit the number of candidates from the political parties to 10 each to encourage independents.

Now I'm just throwing out ideas, trying to express what I think could be done in some areas. And to me that is what the Occupy movement is all about. It is a dialogue the people are having with ourselves - outside of the political system.

First - identify and express our grievances. (This is where we are now...)
Two - formulate what reforms we think are required.
Three - Peacefully agitate to get genuine reforms implemented.

The actual occupations are symbolic - the visible tip of the iceberg of discontent. They provide a focus and a meeting point for dialogue. They are both Global and National as different countries face some problems in common while others are specific to that region.