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…4243454748…82

Comments

  • Options
    #1322
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,333 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


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

    Have a look at the numbers covered in the IT footage. Used to be standard practice for the Met police in London to do this at demonstrations in London when I lived there. I did some legal work for Liberty (NCCL) and we had to produce evidence of this for actions against the police. Hope it doesn't become a regular thing here.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/masked-men-secure-dublin-property-after-housing-activists-removed-1.3626087


  • Options
    #1323
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,492 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    I don't think so...

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

    Trespass on building, etc. 13.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to trespass on any building or the curtilage thereof in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another ...


  • Options
    #1324
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Trespass on building, etc. 13.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to trespass on any building or the curtilage thereof in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another ...


    i bolded the relevant part. if you are not causing fear then there is no offence


  • Options
    #1325
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,492 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i bolded the relevant part. if you are not causing fear then there is no offence

    So why did the owner have to go to court do you think?


  • Options
    #1326
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Dublin City Council blocked 55 apartments to be developed on the old Magdalene site in town.

    Mary Lou celebrating it.

    How anyone can put all the blame on Eoghan Murphy is baffling.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1327
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    tayto lover wrote: »
    So why did the owner have to go to court do you think?


    because no criminal offence had been committed. if they were causing fear then the gardai could have removed them.


  • Options
    #1328
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,492 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    because no criminal offence had been committed. if they were causing fear then the gardai could have removed them.

    If no criminal offence was being committed then why did the court make the order?
    My bet is that the judge didn't agree with you.


  • Options
    #1329
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    I see Leo and Josephine have both voiced their concerns about what took place here.

    Progress.


  • Options
    #1330
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Trespass on building, etc. 13.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to trespass on any building or the curtilage thereof in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another ...
    Ah right, so in that case extend my reference to criminal damage to 'causing fear' in another person occupying that dwelling.

    It still isn't a crime to simply trespass onto a vacant property, is my point.

    "That would be a civil matter"

    Edit: has the above subsection actually been commenced? I'm not sure this actually has the force of law, as yet.


  • Options
    #1331
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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

    There’s a green belt around Dublin?

    Green belt =/= green space.

    I didn’t read the guardian article, but I’m willing to bet it doesn’t recommend building on Hyde park or Kew Gardens.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1332
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    tayto lover wrote: »
    If no criminal offence was being committed then why did the court make the order?
    My bet is that the judge didn't agree with you.


    If the judge did not agree with me the protestors would have been arrested for the criminal offence you quoted. they were not. the only reason the judge got involved at all is because it was a civil matter.


  • Options
    #1333
    NasserShammaz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 886 ✭✭✭NasserShammaz


    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.

    Go back under your bridge 17yr old :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1334
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,492 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    If the judge did not agree with me the protestors would have been arrested for the criminal offence you quoted. they were not. the only reason the judge got involved at all is because it was a civil matter.

    My bet is that the protesters "caused fear" in him and that's the reason.

    Either way they had no business invading someone else's property.


  • Options
    #1335
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    tayto lover wrote: »
    My bet is that the protesters "caused fear" in him and that's the reason.


    in who, the judge? how can that be possible when they never met and the judge was never in the building. you're just talking nonsense for some unknown reason.


  • Options
    #1336
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    The pictures I seen, some were wearing those paramilitary style balaclava.
    There are balaclavas not used by paramilitaries, terrorists, etc?
    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/
    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.
    "that gardaí seem to use pepper spray much more than other police services, such as the PSNI and Metropolitan Police" who walk around with guns, and use water cannons on protesters.
    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.
    And you never considered that it's because they're the first group of accidental landlords? They settle down, buy a house, and then suddenly get moved away, forcing them to rent out their house.


  • Options
    #1337
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,984 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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.


    he did write in proper english. the piece you quoted explains exactly what he meant. it was very simple to understand i thought.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #1338
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,984 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    That may be the main issue for you and some others but for many it isn't.

    that doesn't mean it isn't one of the main issues though. it most certainly is
    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    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.

    even if they did know, that's not enough. the hoodies should have been identifiable for the protection of all involved.
    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    All of which were complied with.

    they didn't comply with wearing their helmets as required when wearing their balaclava though.
    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Gardaí are always the target of ridiculous accusations. I bet there isn't even a shred of evidence for anyone of those claims.

    had the hoodies who were being helped by the gardai been identifiable, then there would be no suspicions in this case in relation to the gardai.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #1339
    uptherebels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    end of the road wrote: »
    that doesn't mean it isn't one of the main issues though. it most certainly is



    even if they did know, that's not enough. the hoodies should have been identifiable for the protection of all involved.



    they didn't comply with wearing their helmets as required when wearing their balaclava though.



    had the hoodies who were being helped by the gardai been identifiable, then there would be no suspicions in this case in relation to the gardai.

    The guards were there to keep the peace not help the "hoodies",
    I'll ask you again to highlight the relevant legislation where the "hoodies" are required to identify themselves.
    Just because you want them to doesn't have any relevance.


  • Options
    #1340
    Edgware
    Registered Users Posts: 5,875 ✭✭✭Edgware


    end of the road wrote: »
    that doesn't mean it isn't one of the main issues though. it most certainly is



    even if they did know, that's not enough. the hoodies should have been identifiable for the protection of all involved.



    they didn't comply with wearing their helmets as required when wearing their balaclava though.



    had the hoodies who were being helped by the gardai been identifiable, then there would be no suspicions in this case in relation to the gardai.

    It was only a few crusties like those apes swinging in the trees down in Wicklow years ago. A lovely road there now


  • Options
    #1341
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    end of the road wrote: »
    even if they did know, that's not enough. the hoodies should have been identifiable for the protection of all involved.

    Why though?
    Why do you think people need to show their face?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1342
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Why though?
    Why do you think people need to show their face?

    He's not alone.

    Josephine.

    Photos of gardaearing hoods as men in balaclavas executed a court order for a landlord did not “inspire public confidence” in the force, the head of the Policing Authority has said.
    Josephine Feehily said she was pleased Garda Commissioner Drew Harris had made a statement on the matter, which relates to the handling of a housing crisis protest being brought to an end at a vacant building in Dublin’s north inner city.

    It was work the Garda was obliged, and expected, to carry out, she said. While gardaí did it well, it was “a pity” they appeared to deviate from their own protocol this week.

    She and her colleagues in the Policing Authority would pursue the issue further with Mr Harris.

    Leo.

    Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said he, like most people, did not want to see landlord’s agents and gardai working in balaclavas on the streets. But he said the gardai involved were enforcing the law.


  • Options
    #1343
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    He's not alone.

    Josephine.

    Photos of gardaearing hoods as men in balaclavas executed a court order for a landlord did not “inspire public confidence” in the force, the head of the Policing Authority has said.

    Leo.

    They're saying different things though, they're not agreeing.

    End Of The Road said the security needed to be identifiable for "the protection of all involved". Neither Varadkar nor Feehily said anything remotely like that.


  • Options
    #1344
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Have a look at the numbers covered in the IT footage. Used to be standard practice for the Met police in London to do this at demonstrations in London when I lived there. I did some legal work for Liberty (NCCL) and we had to produce evidence of this for actions against the police. Hope it doesn't become a regular thing here.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/masked-men-secure-dublin-property-after-housing-activists-removed-1.3626087


    Every Garda in that footage as visible numbers as far as I can see. Can you give a timestamp for the one that doesn't?

    end of the road wrote: »
    that doesn't mean it isn't one of the main issues though. it most certainly is

    I thought the main issue was housing for the homeless.
    end of the road wrote: »
    even if they did know, that's not enough. the hoodies should have been identifiable for the protection of all involved.

    In what way would it have enhanced protection? It certainly wouldn't have given them any protection.
    end of the road wrote: »
    they didn't comply with wearing their helmets as required when wearing their balaclava though.

    As has been pointed out, the scene commander can tell them what to wear. What difference do you think it would have made for them to be wearing their helmets?
    end of the road wrote: »
    had the hoodies who were being helped by the gardai been identifiable, then there would be no suspicions in this case in relation to the gardai.


    Nonsense. The same people will always find some ridiculous claim to level at Gardaí with zero evidence.


  • Options
    #1345
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Amirani wrote: »
    They're saying different things though, they're not agreeing.

    End Of The Road said the security needed to be identifiable for "the protection of all involved". Neither Varadkar nor Feehily said anything remotely like that.

    Semantics.

    Besides, I was answering the posters query that I replied to and quoted, not EOTR.
    Why do you think people need to show their face?


  • Options
    #1346
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    end of the road wrote: »
    even if they did know, that's not enough. the hoodies should have been identifiable for the protection of all involved.
    Everyone involved was masked to prevent future intimidation by the crusties.

    The crusties are demanding that everyones identities are released, so that the crusties can harass them.


  • Options
    #1347
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,492 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Peoples energy should now focus on the issue of homelessness.
    There are loads of council houses boarded up all around the country.
    We should be making representations to our local councillors to have these homes repaired and given to families asap.
    I counted 18 in about a half-hour drive around Dundalk yesterday. I will be pestering my councillors to do something about it on MON morning.


  • Options
    #1348
    BBFAN
    Registered Users Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭BBFAN


    the_syco wrote: »
    Everyone involved was masked to prevent future intimidation by the crusties.

    The crusties are demanding that everyones identities are released, so that the crusties can harass them.

    The more time you say crusties the cooler you are. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1349
    guylikeme
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭guylikeme


    The kid in me is all like WOW my threads gone massive.

    WOOP!


  • Options
    #1350
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Peoples energy should now focus on the issue of homelessness.
    There are loads of council houses boarded up all around the country.
    We should be making representations to our local councillors to have these homes repaired and given to families asap.
    I counted 18 in about a half-hour drive around Dundalk yesterday. I will be pestering my councillors to do something about it on MON morning.

    And this will have come about due to this issue being brought to your attention from those that protested.

    The protesters might call their protest a success if more people do likewise.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1351
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    This is a sad indictment of Irish law and society in general.

    A bunch twits take over a private property, thumb their nose at the courts and claim the owner/security company and gardai were heavy handed when they were thrown out on their asses.

    I watched 2 of them being interviewed by Matt Cooper and Ivan Yates on Wednesday night, the blond was giggling away when she was asked if they are homeless or if any homeless people were in there.


Advertisement