Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Frederick St protest and reaction

Options
1…910121415…82

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Kiith
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 23,055 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kiith


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Bailiffs?

    And what happens if they refuse to move then?

    I'm not giving out either way about it...just curious as to what is "supposed" to happen.


  • Options
    #333
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    riffmongous wrote: »
    Because it's getting attention and keeping the issue in the public eye and being talked about, it's not rocket science
    It's pretty redundant though.

    There isn't a day goes by that it's not on the news, that Sinn Fein isn't filing a no-confidence motion, or there's some new survey about rental prices, or some new homeless figures.

    This is not a hidden issue that is being ignored or covered up and needs heavy-handed activism to keep it in the public consciousness.


  • Options
    #334
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Kiith wrote: »
    And what happens if they refuse to move then?

    I'm not giving out either way about it...just curious as to what is "supposed" to happen.
    A bailiff acting on a court order can use reasonable force in removing people from a property. A court has other options open to it, including fining occupiers (and making an order for attachment to the occupier's earnings or social welfare income).


  • Options
    #335
    bonkers67
    Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭bonkers67


    Edgware wrote: »
    Just shows the Shinner scumbag attitude hasnt gone away. Usual scrotes with tattoos and fags in the arse pocket. Varadkar and Martin correct to keep them outside the door. Sooner or later people will see through the Shinner magic beans policies

    Is this loon allowed out unsupervised?


  • Options
    #336
    bonkers67
    Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭bonkers67


    seamus wrote: »
    It's pretty redundant though.

    There isn't a day goes by that it's not on the news, that Sinn Fein isn't filing a no-confidence motion, or there's some new survey about rental prices, or some new homeless figures.

    This is not a hidden issue that is being ignored or covered up and needs heavy-handed activism to keep it in the public consciousness.

    It is being ignored.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    washiskin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,360 ✭✭✭washiskin


    Genuine question, have this group occupied any boarded up local authority flats or houses anywhere? Is it just private dwellings they are targeting? :confused:


  • Options
    #338
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Why is that so awful? We do that to build motorways, it's called compulsory purchase.

    Where are we going to raise the money to pay for compulsory purchase orders for all these houses? It would cost in the billions, we don't have that sort of money.


  • Options
    #339
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,799 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    Kiith wrote: »
    If it's not the Garda's responsibility to remove people from a property after a court orders them to leave, who's responsibility is it? And what happens if the protesters refuse to move for the non-garda people?

    I don't particularly like the idea of the Garda wearing balaclava's, but i can understand why they do.

    I don't agree with the balaclava's, the public have a right to know who is policing them; in addition, having a bunch of lads with bally's on and an English reg van to bring them in is handing the protesters a bit of a PR coup.


  • Options
    #340
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    I don't agree with the balaclava's, the public have a right to know who is policing them; in addition, having a bunch of lads with bally's on and an English reg van to bring them in is handing the protesters a bit of a PR coup.

    They do know, they have badges and can find out their identity if they want.

    What’s so important about seen their faces?


  • Options
    #341
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    I am confident that AGS might not want their faces shown, and that there may be valid reasons for same. I am confident they might want weapons too, and to bar individuals from taking photographs of their actions, and so on and so forth. None of this means they should be entitled to do so, or that they exercised the right to do so correctly in this instance.

    Were they not wearing fire retardant hoods?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Amirani wrote: »
    Where are we going to raise the money to pay for compulsory purchase orders for all these houses? It would cost in the billions, we don't have that sort of money.
    How about restoring the VAT rate on cups of coffee and restaurant meals?

    The Department of Finance itself estimates that the "temporary" reduction in the VAT rate has cost the Exchequer €2.6bn in revenue since its introduction.


  • Options
    #343
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    bonkers67 wrote: »
    It is being ignored.
    Right


  • Options
    #344
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    How about restoring the VAT rate on cups of coffee and restaurant meals?

    The Department of Finance itself estimates that the "temporary" reduction in the VAT rate has cost the Exchequer €2.6bn in revenue since its introduction.

    Completely in agreement there; I'd be in favour or restoring that. I'd also be in favour of an increase in property taxes, particularly on vacant ones like the ones identified. There's still going to be a large shortfall of what's required to house anyone needing a home though.

    I'd also be in favour of councils building more affordable housing; which is much more cost-effective than trying to buy/CPO expensive properties in the middle of the city. Anyone needing to be housed immediately should be offered housing outside of Dublin where it's more plentiful.


  • Options
    #345
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,799 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    They do know, they have badges and can find out their identity if they want.

    What’s so important about seen their faces?

    Well I suppose the corollary is why would the Garda hide their faces, but have their badges on show?

    We don't live in a tinpot dictatorship. We live in a republic and the Garda (funded by our tax money) police the state with the publics consent. Hiding their faces and protecting lads wearing balaclavas and tracksuits themselves (who also seem to have been breaking the law ) does not make for a great look.


  • Options
    #346
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,148 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    I don't agree with the balaclava's, the public have a right to know who is policing them

    Eh, they do, and they did.
    DrumSteve wrote: »
    who also seem to have been breaking the law

    What law?


  • Options
    #347
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,628 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    seamus wrote: »
    It's pretty redundant though.

    There isn't a day goes by that it's not on the news, that Sinn Fein isn't filing a no-confidence motion, or there's some new survey about rental prices, or some new homeless figures.

    This is not a hidden issue that is being ignored or covered up and needs heavy-handed activism to keep it in the public consciousness.
    Most ordinary people aren't very interested in talking about statistics and surveys though, something like this, whether you agree or disagree with it, is going to be better at keeping the issue in the public view


  • Options
    #348
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,799 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    Hurrache wrote: »
    Eh, they do, and they did.



    What law?

    The laws around private security displaying correct identification and the laws around driving a van that has valid nct, tax and insurance.


  • Options
    #349
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,148 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    The laws around private security displaying correct identification and the laws around driving a van that has valid nct, tax and insurance.

    So firstly, what private security law were they breaking?

    Secondly, how do you know they had no tax, insurance, and required an NCT?


  • Options
    #350
    Topgear on Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 4,522 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    +1 Protests needed.

    99.99 percent of the population are housed just fine and most folks have little contact with the rental sector.

    The fact that its on the news does not mean that voters will vote in favour of doing thing to provide more accomodation.


    Also the cops screwed up yesterday.

    The protesters knew they would be evicted.
    The cops knew they would be evicted.
    Why did the cops allow those other fools dress in black with black balaclavas and driving that battered oul untaxed van?
    Why didnt the cops have a senior unmasked officer there to take charge and talk to protesters/journalists. Iv no problem with the ordinary cops wearing masks really.

    Image is important and this is a win for the protesters.


  • Options
    #351
    Kiith
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 23,055 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kiith


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    The laws around private security displaying correct identification and the laws around driving a van that has valid nct, tax and insurance.

    The van is a valid complaint, but they were not required to have ID.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/0912/993266-dublin-protest/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,799 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    Hurrache wrote: »
    So firstly, what private security law were they breaking?

    Secondly, how do you know they had no tax, insurance, and required an NCT?

    As noted above; they had bally's on and no ID. I'd be fairly certain as part of the private security licence you would need to at least wear your badge (like every doorman in temple bar).

    I seen the Van window. It's freely available online if you want to have a look yourself.


  • Options
    #353
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,799 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    Kiith wrote: »
    The van is a valid complaint, but they were not required to have ID.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/0912/993266-dublin-protest/

    Interesting about the ID in that case; what would they be classed under then in that case? Baliffs?


  • Options
    #354
    Topgear on Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 4,522 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    As noted above; they had bally's on and no ID. I'd be fairly certain as part of the private security licence you would need to at least wear your badge (like every doorman in temple bar).

    How do we know they were a private security company and not members of the family that own the house?


  • Options
    #355
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,148 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    As noted above; they had bally's on and no ID. I'd be fairly certain as part of the private security licence you would need to at least wear your badge (like every doorman in temple bar).

    I seen the Van window. It's freely available online if you want to have a look yourself.

    You may be certain, but you'd be wrong.

    And if the van was registered in northern Ireland as some claim, there's no requirement to display disks other than an MoT, so you've no way of knowing if it was taxed or insured.


  • Options
    #356
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,799 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    Topgear on Dave wrote: »
    How do we know they were a private security company and not members of the family that own the house?

    Lets get them on to Maury for a DNA test then :pac:


  • Options
    #357
    cursai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    A bailiff acting on a court order can use reasonable force in removing people from a property. A court has other options open to it, including fining occupiers (and making an order for attachment to the occupier's earnings or social welfare income).

    No. they can't use reasonable force to enforce an order.


  • Options
    #358
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    Interesting about the ID in that case; what would they be classed under then in that case? Baliffs?
    Private individuals.

    They may or may not have been contracted, we don't know.

    But what they were doing is not a competency of the PSA, so no ID or training required.


  • Options
    #359
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Kiith wrote: »
    The van is a valid complaint, but they were not required to have ID.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/0912/993266-dublin-protest/

    Tax disks are no longer used in Uk. Insurance disks never were.


  • Options
    #360
    cursai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    Well I suppose the corollary is why would the Garda hide their faces, but have their badges on show?

    We don't live in a tinpot dictatorship. We live in a republic and the Garda (funded by our tax money) police the state with the publics consent. Hiding their faces and protecting lads wearing balaclavas and tracksuits themselves (who also seem to have been breaking the law ) does not make for a great look.

    I think its to stop all the dirty scrotes and internet protesters from identifying them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    Well I suppose the corollary is why would the Garda hide their faces, but have their badges on show?

    We don't live in a tinpot dictatorship. We live in a republic and the Garda (funded by our tax money) police the state with the publics consent. Hiding their faces and protecting lads wearing balaclavas and tracksuits themselves (who also seem to have been breaking the law ) does not make for a great look.


    The Gardai were probably hiding their faces because of the type of seriously deranged people that they were dealing with because in similar situations the family of Gardai and Gardai themselves have been targetted in their private homes and private situations in absolutely disgusting situations.

    There were whole Facebook pages dedicated to outing Garda so that they could be targetted by idiots. It is completely unacceptable behaviour.

    For me, Gardai should wear bodycams and the penalties for resisting a Gardai or assaulting a Gardai should be a minimum jail sentence of appropriate length, which can't be suspended. The evidence from the bodycams should be used to convict. The pushing and shoving and assaulting of Gardai in so-called "peaceful" protests would soon stop.


Advertisement