The Frederick St protest and reaction

Graces7

BBFAN wrote: »

And those are your choices Grace, doesn't mean everyone else is the same.

Choices? Ah no ... necessity... I live within a small pension and am all but housebound through disabling illness. But I do not count myself as poor .

Poor is what I almost was last year ie without a roof over my head etc. Poor is living rough. or in a hostel.

I hate that they assess people like me as "poor" and use that to inflate the figures as they do.

ProfessorPlum

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

It needs to stay on the news because most voters arent renting.

Thats why you see politicians celebrating the fact yesterday that 500 gaffs on the northside of Dublin got denied planning.

Those 500 gaffs were going to be built on land that is part of st Anne’s Park - land that was all but given to the priests who own St. Paul’s college - they paid £1 to the council for the lands - and it was given to them to be used as playing fields for the kids. Up until this year that’s what they were used for - school playing fields, and outside of school hours they were fully utilised by local gaa, soccer and rugby clubs. The local clubs invested heavily in those pitches to get them upto standard, and then had them pretty much sold from under them making the priests a tidy profit on lands that morally they had no right to sell. IMO.
And then there’s the Brent geese. Thank god for those lads.

So if you think it’s wrong to deny development in st Anne’s, I’m going to assume the rest of Dublin’s Parks are up for grabs - Phoenix Park, Marley, st Stephens green? It’s not like there aren’t other spaces that could be developed without affecting the public amenities that imo should be protected.

ohnonotgmail

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

How can I simplify my stance any further for you, help me out here....

Stick with me.

There was a high court order instructing the people who illegally remained in a property which didn't belong to them. - fine, that's what happens when you take something that does not belong to you. Still with me?

I do however think it's a worrying development when our police force rock up in conjunction with hooded men, who as yet, no one knows what (if any) security firm they were from, who instructed them to enforce the order, and why they had no identifiable features t distinuish them whatsoever.

In Britain, bailiffs and highcourt enforcement officers are clearly identifiable, in fact even identify themselves by name and with badges informing them why they're there, who sent them, and what firm employs them, even leaving their telephone numbers (from what I have witnessed)

In Ireland, lads who look like they might be about to read some kind of statement from a paramilitary organisation rock up to their job, Gardai in toe, and no one seems to know who sent them, where they came from, and who to get in contact with should the whole thing go tits up, ie an injured party on either side?

Don't you see the stark contrast with the transparency and professionalism of how it might go in England in comparison with the cloak and dagger skullduggery that took place here?

Is Ireland so much more of a dangerous place to carry out court orders than the UK that the people doing so here, must do so under such a veil of secrecy? Are the highcourt enforcers here a bunch of snowflakes compared to the British ones, or was their identity shrouded in secrecy for some other reason?

It appeared, and was fairly sinister.

TLDR? I have zero problems with high court orders being enforced, so long as they are done in a transparent and less sinister manner.

No need to simplify just try in future to write in proper English. The piece I quoted does not match what you have just posted.

Graces7

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not moving the goalposts, maybe you didn't notice that i specifically referenced the urban areas of the country from the outset.

I'm originally from the countryside myself, I know very well that property prices haven't recovered there (although 'recovery' seems the wrong word to use, for prices that were wildly inflated to begin with).

In any event, rural property isn't really relevant to the housing and homelessness crisis.

How do you work that out? Not true I assure you. In fact more of a crisis out here as so many houses are summer only lets which closes them off to regular tenants who need a home. Just now there are so many "winter lets" on daft.
The lack of rural properties drives folk to the cities to add to the crisis there.

BBFAN

Graces7 wrote: »

Choices? Ah no ... necessity... I live within a small pension and am all but housebound through disabling illness. But I do not count myself as poor .

Poor is what I almost was last year ie without a roof over my head etc. Poor is living rough. or in a hostel.

I hate that they assess people like me as "poor" and use that to inflate the figures as they do.

By your own admission Grace you would not "like" to live that way, thereby signifying a choice. Don't later pull the pensioner card.

Earlier you've said you haven't had a holiday for 40 years, I'm sure you're not a pensioner for the last 40 years either.

McMurphy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No need to simplify just try in future to write in proper English. The piece I quoted does not match what you have just posted.

**and I have zero problem with the protesters removal, just who did the removing, and under who's orders**

That's written in English, and not cryptically so either.

I suggest absorbing information before dispensing your own interpretation the next time.

Amirani

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I do however think it's a worrying development when our police force rock up in conjunction with hooded men, who as yet, no one knows what (if any) security firm they were from, who instructed them to enforce the order, and why they had no identifiable features t distinuish them whatsoever.

In Britain, bailiffs and highcourt enforcement officers are clearly identifiable, in fact even identify themselves by name and with badges informing them why they're there, who sent them, and what firm employs them, even leaving their telephone numbers (from what I have witnessed)

In Ireland, lads who look like they might be about to read some kind of statement from a paramilitary organisation rock up to their job, Gardai in toe, and no one seems to know who sent them, where they came from, and who to get in contact with should the whole thing go tits up, ie an injured party on either side?

Don't you see the stark contrast with the transparency and professionalism of how it might go in England in comparison with the cloak and dagger skullduggery that took place here?

Is Ireland so much more of a dangerous place to carry out court orders than the UK that the people doing so here, must do so under such a veil of secrecy? Are the highcourt enforcers here a bunch of snowflakes compared to the British ones, or was their identity shrouded in secrecy for some other reason?

It appeared, and was fairly sinister.

TLDR? I have zero problems with high court orders being enforced, so long as they are done in a transparent and less sinister manner.

That's all well and good, and I agree that the optics looked bad.

However:

• The men clearing out the house were not court bailiffs, they were hired by the homeowner.
• There's nothing illegal about wearing balaclavas/ski masks, so nothing could be done to stop them.
• There's no obligation for these men acting on behalf of the home owner to identify themselves to people at the scene and nor should there really. I assume the Gardaí knew who they were as they would've informed them they were coming.

Maybe the Gardaí shouldn't have worn ski masks/balaclavas. But that's about the only thing that could've been done differently here. They were right to show up and ensure there wasn't any incidents.

There was an "activist" arrested for having a knife. This situation could've gone very differently if Gardaí weren't present and there was a brawl between protesters and security.

ohnonotgmail

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

That's written in English, and not cryptically so either.

I suggest absorbing information before dispensing your own interpretation the next time.

not cryptically. just badly.

McMurphy

Amirani wrote: »

That's all well and good, and I agree that the optics looked bad.

However:

• The men clearing out the house were not court bailiffs, they were hired by the homeowner.
• There's nothing illegal about wearing balaclavas/ski masks, so nothing could be done to stop them.
• There's no obligation for these men acting on behalf of the home owner to identify themselves to people at the scene and nor should there really. I assume the Gardanew who they were as they would've informed them they were coming.

Maybe the Gardahouldn't have worn ski masks/balaclavas. But that's about the only thing that could've been done differently here. They were right to show up and ensure there wasn't any incidents.

There was an "activist" arrested for having a knife. This situation could've gone very differently if Gardaeren't present and there was a brawl between protesters and security.

Can homeowners just hire goons to enforce high court orders now?

The Kinnehan and Hutch cartels will never be short of work now even if drugs are legalised.

This is worrying information tbh, and a real eye opener for me, if you ever are in dispute or contest a high court order, masked men (could be thugs/criminals/or even imposters) can now show up to enforce the court orders.

I wonder if the A-Team are still freelancing?

Captain Obvious

dav3 wrote: »

The main issue is the behaviour of the Gardaí and the perception that they were there siding

That may be the main issue for you and some others but for many it isn't.

dav3 wrote: »

with unidentified masked men,

Do you think the Gardaí knew who they were? I'd be willing to bet they identified themselves to Gardaí before hand and told them they would be going down at a certain time.

dav3 wrote: »

rather than carrying out the job they are paid to do

Preserving the peace is their job.

dav3 wrote: »

following the three simple Policing Principles that state that policing services must be provided:
1) Independent and impartially.
2) In a manner that respects human rights.
3) In a manner that supports the proper and effective administration of justice.

All of which were complied with.

dav3 wrote: »

This has led to all sorts of accusations, including the rumour that the masked men were known to the Gardaí. Rumours that they were a criminal gang from the UK, or a criminal gang from Ireland, or a paramilitary gang from the north, or even Gardaí themselves looking for a bit of extra money on the side and not wanting to be identified.

Gardaí are always the target of ridiculous accusations. I bet there isn't even a shred of evidence for anyone of those claims.

dav3 wrote: »

With so many Gardaí getting into property and becoming landlords during the boom, you can understand why people may be concerned over the possibility of them taking the side of the landlord and whatever masked goons turn up at the next protest.

How many Gardaí are landlords?

dav3 wrote: »

The housing crisis is not going away, it appears that the protests are only just beginning. Hopefully the Gardaí have their house in order by the next event.

I'd imagine their response will be much more ordered alright. Going to be Water Protests 2.0

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

In fairness, it's a fairly common experience, i think it has something to do with the early retirement age of Gardaí, who in recent years have often tended to become landlords as part of their pension plan/ part-time job in retirement.

I rented in Dublin before i bought my place, and over the course of about seven years, two of my landlords were retired gardaí. It's only anecdotal, I'm not sure who would possibly gather data on this.

Retired Gardaí? What's that got to do with the lads at the protest. The reason some retired Gardaí tend to have property is that they purchased a property when they were deployed to their station and later in their careers they'd get their transfers back home down the country and rent their city house instead of sell it. Back then the pensions were much more generous though.

Amirani

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

This is worrying information tbh, and a real eye opener for me, if you ever are in dispute or contest a high court order, masked men (could be thugs/criminals/or even imposters) can now show up to enforce the court orders.

You can't just "contest a high court order". The court order is the outcome of the civil dispute. What's the point in courts otherwise?

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

In fact more of a crisis out here as so many houses are summer only lets which closes them off to regular tenants who need a home. Just now there are so many "winter lets" on daft.
The lack of rural properties drives folk to the cities to add to the crisis there.

I'm in the countryside every weekend or so, I have family and friends living there, and I've never heard anything about a local housing crisis.

If i'm wrong, i'm wrong. But it's not something i'm aware of. There are entire houses for rent in my hometown for 500 euro a month, you'd struggle to find a single bedroom in Dublin for that price.

Graces7

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not for the Gardai. They’re prohibited from wearing burkas or any form of religious paraphernalia. The use of balaclavas in this instance is not justifiable, particularly if they’ve no recognisable unique identification in the event of violent clashes. Officers need to be identifiable in the event of use of excess force.

Surely they can wear turbans?

Thatnastyboy

Amirani wrote: »

You can't just "contest a high court order". The court order is the outcome of the civil dispute. What's the point in courts otherwise?

I wonder if there was a court order in place instructing the owner to sell a vacant property would it be OK for the owner to ignore and "contest"?

Somehow I doubt it.

ProfessorPlum

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Those 500 gaffs were going to be built on land that is part of st Anne’s Park - land that was all but given to the priests who own St. Paul’s college - they paid £1 to the council for the lands - and it was given to them to be used as playing fields for the kids. Up until this year that’s what they were used for - school playing fields, and outside of school hours they were fully utilised by local gaa, soccer and rugby clubs. The local clubs invested heavily in those pitches to get them upto standard, and then had them pretty much sold from under them making the priests a tidy profit on lands that morally they had no right to sell. IMO.
And then there’s the Brent geese. Thank god for those lads.

So if you think it’s wrong to deny development in st Anne’s, I’m going to assume the rest of Dublin’s Parks are up for grabs - Phoenix Park, Marley, st Stephens green? It’s not like there aren’t other spaces that could be developed without affecting the public amenities that imo should be protected.

70% of the Phoenix Park could be given up for housing with plenty left over for greenspace activities. Its ridiculous the amount of idle land that sits inside the M50 in this part of the city.

Thatnastyboy

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm in the countryside every weekend or so, I have family and friends living there, and I've never heard anything about a local housing crisis.

If i'm wrong, i'm wrong. But it's not something i'm aware of. There are entire houses for rent in my hometown for 500 euro a month, you'd struggle to find a single bedroom in Dublin for that price.

I don't know where your hometown is but it must be very very far from anywhere

Try rent one in the "commuter belt" - kildare/laois/carlow,

Find me a house in kildare for 500 a month and I will go rent it right now.

You are wearing some serious blinkers if you think that prices are only an issue in Dublin.

Amirani

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

I wonder if there was a court order in place instructing the owner to sell a vacant property would it be OK for the owner to ignore and "contest"?

Somehow I doubt it.

Exactly. The protesters seem to want Compulsory Purchase Orders used to acquire the vacant properties. Why exactly should land owners abide by these orders when they don't abide by court orders to leave the property?

We have courts to make decisions on these things. You can't just decide you don't like the decision and ignore the order, that's completely undemocratic.

Graces7

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm in the countryside every weekend or so, I have family and friends living there, and I've never heard anything about a local housing crisis.

If i'm wrong, i'm wrong. But it's not something i'm aware of. There are entire houses for rent in my hometown for 500 euro a month, you'd struggle to find a single bedroom in Dublin for that price.

where is that please? Very few at any price where i have lived. Try daft ie Mayo. ONE under E500

Same in most counties.

Graces7

BBFAN wrote: »

By your own admission Grace you would not "like" to live that way, thereby signifying a choice. Don't later pull the pensioner card.

Earlier you've said you haven't had a holiday for 40 years, I'm sure you're not a pensioner for the last 40 years either.

:rolleyes: Have a nice weekend.

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

where is that please? Very few at any price where i have lived. Try daft ie Mayo. ONE under E500

Same in most counties.

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

You are wearing some serious blinkers if you think that prices are only an issue in Dublin.

I'm talking about North Tipperary, not a Dublin commuter belt, but still within commuting distance to Limerick and Galway.

See, you guys seem to be complaining about a lack of *cheap* properties in rural areas. I know a property in my hometown for rent at 500 euro per month, but you're right, most are probably going to cost you about 100 or maybe 200 quid more than that in rural Ireland.

The crucial point, though, is that this is well below the monthly rent requested in the urban areas, and there is no shortage of supply in rural ireland. What you are referring to is not a crisis.

Seathrun66

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's why they wore their numbers on their shoulders.

Not identifiable according to reports and all the pics I've seen. Covered over with knife vests and/or padded coats.

ProfessorPlum

Deleted User wrote: »

70% of the Phoenix Park could be given up for housing with plenty left over for greenspace activities. Its ridiculous the amount of idle land that sits inside the M50 in this part of the city.

You think we should plough up 70% of the Phoenix Park for housing - when, like you say there’s plenty of land sitting idle - or being used mainly for illegal dumping as far as I can see - inside the M50? Or is it so bad to develop outside the M50 if the alternative is to lose our city’s green spaces?

Very short sighted on your part. Ploughing up our public parks is not the solution to this housing crisis.

Thatnastyboy

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm talking about North Tipperary, not a Dublin commuter belt, but still within commuting distance to Limerick and Galway.

See, you guys seem to be complaining about a lack of *cheap* properties in rural areas. I know a property in my hometown for rent at 500 euro per month, but you're right, most are probably going to cost you about 100 or maybe 200 quid more than that in rural Ireland.

The crucial point, though, is that this is well below the monthly rent requested in the urban areas, and there is no shortage of supply. What you are referring to is not a crisis.

Ah, so every time you are proved wrong you move the goalposts.

It is fully clear now that you are talking through your hole, I'm not going to waste any more time on it, good luck.

Seathrun66

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Never knew it was a thing at all. Sure I thought they were on terrible wages...

Front page of the Phoenix this week refers to it.

tayto lover

I protested at Water Charges and people from IW going onto private property.
I'd be some hypocrite if I suddenly condoned others now going onto private property and inhabiting it.
We cannot play both sides of the same argument lads. Let's be fair and honest.
Trespassing is still a crime I presume.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

Trespassing is still a crime I presume.

I don't think so...

Criminal trespass is, that requires criminal damage to property; I'm not aware of any trespassing crime in itself.

Seathrun66

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not identifiable according to reports and all the pics I've seen. Covered over with knife vests and/or padded coats.

Plain to be seen in any photos I’ve come across. None so blind as those who will not see.

Seathrun66

Graces7 wrote: »

Surely they can wear turbans?

No. It signifies religious persuasion and due to our history anything indicating beliefs is banned.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/garda%C3%AD-deny-turban-ban-is-based-on-race-or-religion-1.957733

Captain Obvious

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not identifiable according to reports and all the pics I've seen. Covered over with knife vests and/or padded coats.

Identifiable in the pictures posted in this thread. Which photos are you talking about.

ProfessorPlum

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You think we should plough up 70% of the Phoenix Park for housing - when, like you say there’s plenty of land sitting idle - or being used mainly for illegal dumping as far as I can see - inside the M50? Or is it so bad to develop outside the M50 if the alternative is to lose our city’s green spaces?

Very short sighted on your part. Ploughing up our public parks is not the solution to this housing crisis.

The greenbelt type concept has had its day. Encourages unsustainable activities like commuting.

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2014/may/21/six-reasons-to-build-on-green-belt