The Frederick St protest and reaction

PlaneSpeeking

end of the road wrote: »

i don't agree they help nothing. they help keep this issue in the public eye. people have had enough of being screwed, it's as simple as that.

Oh you really are priceless!!!!!!

WE the taxpaying f**king masses are the ones tired of being screwed - not the workshy class.

Jesus f**king wept.

The Caveman

Hi, I have been following this story from afar, and are not to up to date with all the details. But please correct me if I am wrong

Protestors enter a house and occupy it illegally. They broke the law.

The high court orders them to leave, and they ignore it. Again, sure there is some law that was broken by ignoring a high court order.

The Gardi/Police/Security whatever they were, came to remove them.

Now, all the focus is on the van not having tax, they wore balaclavas, etc, but nobody is complaining about the protestors breaking the law first.

If they did not ignore the high court order, this would not have happened?

But, let's blame the Gardi for doing their job.

Now I know some people will come on here and justify what they did, to highlight their cause. But why can you/they pick and choose what laws are to be broken?

I supported them until they ignored the court order.

Lau2976

The Caveman wrote: »

Hi, I have been following this story from afar, and are not to up to date with all the details. But please correct me if I am wrong

Protestors enter a house and occupy it illegally. They broke the law.

The high court orders them to leave, and they ignore it. Again, sure there is some law that was broken by ignoring a high court order.

The Gardi/Police/Security whatever they were, came to remove them.

Now, all the focus is on the van not having tax, they wore balaclavas, etc, but nobody is complaining about the protestors breaking the law first.

If they did not ignore the high court order, this would not have happened?

But, let's blame the Gardi for doing their job.

Now I know some people will come on here and justify what they did, to highlight their cause. But why can you/they pick and choose what laws are to be broken?

I supported them until they ignored the court order.

I think for a lot of people, at least those I’ve spoken to about it, it isn’t about supporting their cause necessarily and more about the handling of the whole thing by the Gardai.

There was already widespread disagreement with the new Gardai commissioner (again this is among the people I’ve spoken to) and then adding this is compounding the distrust people now have in the Gardai.

Lau2976

Lau2976 wrote: »

I think for a lot of people, at least those I’ve spoken to about it, it isn’t about supporting their cause necessarily and more about the handling of the whole thing by the Gardai.

There was already widespread disagreement with the new Gardai commissioner (again this is among the people I’ve spoken to) and then adding this is compounding the distrust people now have in the Gardai.

thing about "the people youve spoken to" is that its a self-selecting group innit

storker

The Caveman wrote: »

I supported them until they ignored the court order.

I would be inclined to support them even after ignoring the court order. Civil disobedience is a good way to get attention, particularly for a government that appears to see the housing crisis as a PR problem.

Of course, I don't condemn their eviction either - they are breaking the law after all - and while the balaclavas do look a bit OTT, I can't really blame the guards on the spot for having concerns about victimisation.

PlaneSpeeking

storker wrote: »

I would be inclined to support them even after ignoring the court order. .

So you support criminals.

RWCNT

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

So you support criminals.

reductive
rɪˈdʌktɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
tending to present a subject or problem in a simplified form, especially one viewed as crude.
"such a conclusion by itself would be reductive"

ohnonotgmail

storker wrote: »

I would be inclined to support them even after ignoring the court order. Civil disobedience is a good way to get attention, particularly for a government that appears to see the housing crisis as a PR problem.

Of course, I don't condemn their eviction either - they are breaking the law after all - and while the balaclavas do look a bit OTT, I can't really blame the guards on the spot for having concerns about victimisation.

So what about the owner of the building, the one who had to pay court costs plus the cost of hiring private security to effect the removal of the protestors? I dont think i've heard anybody even mention them except to portray them in a negative light. what did the owner do to deserve these costs and the associated hassle?

ohnonotgmail

RWCNT wrote: »

reductive
rɪˈdʌktɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
tending to present a subject or problem in a simplified form, especially one viewed as crude.
"such a conclusion by itself would be reductive"

They support people who ignored a court order. how else would you describe it?

McMurphy

Esel wrote: »

The private agents should wear this type of balaclava, so members of the public won't confuse them with Garda

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balaclava_3_hole_black.jpg

The pictures I seen, some were wearing those paramilitary style balaclava.

irishproduce

I tell you what, I am after reading some pr piece from civil liberties this morn.
Who would actually want to be a Garda, seriously.
You have two or three bodies looking over your shoulder, all attempting to justify their existence and pandering to any form of outcry or perceived offence. You are walking on egg shells for fear of offending someone. You have to tip toe and molly coddle protestors who are shouting abuse, breaking the law or in some cases, throwing racial slurs at you.
Then you have politicians who should be defending you, but who instead are more interested in looking over their shoulder at the hard left who get airtime and condemn any form of police activity at a protest.
All this of course while you basically put your life on the line every day to uphold law and order so the general citizenry can go about their lives without fear.

The job seems completely gone to shít and every day on the beat is jumping hurdles, ducking and diving so as not to draw the attention of any one of the numerous actors who are looking to hang you out.

dav3

A new report issued today backs up the concerns people have about the Gardaí. Especially the public order unit/riot squad, which has never has never been held in high regard.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0914/993656-report-iccl-gardai/

It says the garda policing of public protest remains "shrouded in secrecy" and that gardaí seem to use pepper spray much more than other police services, such as the PSNI and Metropolitan Police.

The report says what it calls the "mindset" of An Garda Síochána must change and that gardaí must accept the need for reform and embrace fully the adoption of a human rights-based approach.

Hopefully this will bring about change within the Gardaí.

ohnonotgmail

dav3 wrote: »

A new report issued today backs up the concerns people have about the Gardaí. Especially the public order unit/riot squad, which has never has never been held in high regard.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0914/993656-report-iccl-gardai/



Hopefully this will bring about change within the Gardaí.

any chance for some change in the people who were verbally and physically abusing the gardai?

RWCNT

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They support people who ignored a court order. how else would you describe it?

I'd imagine the poster feels that the occupiers are not in the wrong morally even if they are so legally. So yes, while they do "support criminals" in this case, it's likely they're making a special exception in these circumstances. Making "So you support criminals??" a reductive statement. Tons of activism over the course of history has involved breaking the law.

Doctor Jimbob

The Caveman wrote: »

Hi, I have been following this story from afar, and are not to up to date with all the details. But please correct me if I am wrong

Protestors enter a house and occupy it illegally. They broke the law.

The high court orders them to leave, and they ignore it. Again, sure there is some law that was broken by ignoring a high court order.

The Gardi/Police/Security whatever they were, came to remove them.

Now, all the focus is on the van not having tax, they wore balaclavas, etc, but nobody is complaining about the protestors breaking the law first.

If they did not ignore the high court order, this would not have happened?

But, let's blame the Gardi for doing their job.

Now I know some people will come on here and justify what they did, to highlight their cause. But why can you/they pick and choose what laws are to be broken?

I supported them until they ignored the court order.

You're doing exactly the same thing when you imply the lack of tax and so on is somehow excused by the fact the protesters broke the law first.

ohnonotgmail

RWCNT wrote: »

I'd imagine the poster feels that the occupiers are not in the wrong morally even if they are so legally. So yes, while they do "support criminals" in this case, it's likely they're making a special exception in these circumstances. Making "So you support criminals??" a reductive statement. Tons of activism over the course of history has involved breaking the law.

they can make all the special exemptions in their own head that they like but that doesn't change what happened.

PlaneSpeeking

RWCNT wrote: »

reductive
rɪˈdʌktɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
tending to present a subject or problem in a simplified form, especially one viewed as crude.
"such a conclusion by itself would be reductive"

Want to make a point or just show off you can Google ?

Wheeliebin30

irishproduce wrote: »

I tell you what, I am after reading some pr piece from civil liberties this morn.
Who would actually want to be a Garda, seriously.
You have two or three bodies looking over your shoulder, all attempting to justify their existence and pandering to any form of outcry or perceived offence. You are walking on egg shells for fear of offending someone. You have to tip toe and molly coddle protestors who are shouting abuse, breaking the law or in some cases, throwing racial slurs at you.
Then you have politicians who should be defending you, but who instead are more interested in looking over their shoulder at the hard left who get airtime and condemn any form of police activity at a protest.
All this of course while you basically put your life on the line every day to uphold law and order so the general citizenry can go about their lives without fear.

The job seems completely gone to shít and every day on the beat is jumping hurdles, ducking and diving so as not to draw the attention of any one of the numerous actors who are looking to hang you out.

Totally agree tds saying they are elected to break the law.

No wonder it’s all failing apart, dangerous times.

suicide_circus

dav3 wrote: »

A new report issued today backs up the concerns people have about the GardaEspecially the public order unit/riot squad, which has never has never been held in high regard.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0914/993656-report-iccl-gardai/



Hopefully this will bring about change within the Garda

Civil liberties quango finds issues with civil liberties just before budget time shocker

RWCNT

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they can make all the special exemptions in their own head that they like but that doesn't change what happened.

Yes, people can choose "in their own head" to support people despite the fact that they have broken the law. Isn't every choice made in someone's head?

Yes, it doesn't change what happened, did someone suggest that it did?

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Want to make a point or just show off you can Google ?

I was obviously pointing out that your question was reductive. That's my point.

ohnonotgmail

RWCNT wrote: »

Yes, people can choose "in their own head" to support people despite the fact that they have broken the law. Isn't every choice made in someone's head?

Yes, it doesn't change what happened, did someone suggest that it did?

so the poster is supporting criminals then or have i misunderstood your post?

RWCNT

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so the poster is supporting criminals then or have i misunderstood your post?

I think so, yes. So what? They provided a justification for doing so in that civil disobedience is a good way to garner attention and this government seems to view the housing crisis as a PR issue. Civil disobedience has also been a part of activism going back yonks. You can't seem to move past this reductive "So you support criminals?" line of questioning. What is the objective of asking such a question?

ohnonotgmail

RWCNT wrote: »

I think so, yes. So what? They provided a justification for doing so in that civil disobedience is a good way to garner attention and this government seems to view the housing crisis as a PR issue. Civil disobedience has also been a part of activism going back yonks. You can't seem to move past this reductive "So you support criminals?" line of questioning. Why is the objective of asking such a reductive question?

It wasnt a question. it was a statement of fact.

RWCNT

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It wasnt a question. it was a statement of fact.

Right-o. "So you support criminals?" isn't a question. Dunno what that funny thing at the end of the sentence is but fair enough.

Even if it is a statement of fact, so what? Their reasoning for doing so has been explained, which you've yet to engage with at all.

weldoninhio

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're doing exactly the same thing when you imply the lack of tax and so on is somehow excused by the fact the protesters broke the law first.

As stated many times throughout this thread and in every national newspaper I have read. The Gardai have stated that the van was fully taxed and insured. Can we stop waffling on with this misinformation??

weldoninhio

RWCNT wrote: »

Right-o. "So you support criminals?" isn't a question. Dunno what that funny thing at the end of the sentence is but fair enough.

Perhaps google "rhetorical question"

Doctor Jimbob

weldoninhio wrote: »

As stated many times throughout this thread and in every national newspaper I have read. The Gardai have stated that the van was fully taxed and insured. Can we stop waffling on with this misinformation??

I've seen claims it was and claims that it wasn't. If there's proof that it was then fair enough, but a claim from the Gardai isn't inherently more valid than a claim from anyone else.

Edit: And even if it was taxed, I was responding to a poster under the impression that it wasn't, so my initial point stands.

RWCNT

weldoninhio wrote: »

Perhaps google "rhetorical question"

Haha, I'm well aware the question was rhetorical, I'm just teasing. Even as a statement of fact it still contributes not a blop to this conversation though.

weldoninhio

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I've seen claims it was and claims that it wasn't. If there's proof that it was then fair enough, but a claim from the Gardai isn't inherently more valid than a claim from anyone else.

Edit: And even if it was taxed, I was responding to a poster under the impression that it wasn't, so my initial point stands.

A statement from the Gardai (who i'm sure can access the relevant info) carries a lot more weight than comments from the rent-a-yobs (who think shouting the loudest = proof)

yourdeadwright

weldoninhio wrote: »

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I've seen claims it was and claims that it wasn't. If there's proof that it was then fair enough, but a claim from the Gardai isn't inherently more valid than a claim from anyone else.

Edit: And even if it was taxed, I was responding to a poster under the impression that it wasn't, so my initial point stands.

A statement from the Gardai (who i'm sure can access the relevant info) carries a lot more weight than comments from the rent-a-yobs (who think shouting the loudest = proof)

Like the thousands of berth test they Garda told us they took ,
Why in the world would you believe what the Garda say without evidence  
Anyone can use the website online , you just enter the reg  and it clearly shows it was last taxed in 2014  , but no no the Garda are telling the truth,