The Frederick St protest and reaction

BBFAN

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yep, my biggest bugbear with a lot of the social-media movements in support of housing, is that they seem to believe homelessness will be solved by having one roof for every member of the homeless population.

Anybody who's ever had anything to do with a homeless person must roll their eyes at that notion.

I get your point but even the experts now do say that Home First is the way to go, it's hard for someone to go through detox or rehab and then come out and have to go back to staying in hostels where drugs and drink are the norm.

McMurphy

mynamejeff wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/garda-acid-attack-followed-4150780-Jul2018/

Firstly, that's a disgrace and I hope the bastards that done that get caught and given the maximum penalty applicable to their disgusting crime.

However, that story is about a Lithuanian heroin gang involved in serious organised crime.

The way the above post was constructed, I mistakenly thought that it was implying protesters (of some sort) followed a guard home and sprayed acid on him.

Not saying it was deliberately misleading, but it was misleading none the less.

One of the dangers of being a guard I suppose, the job can be dangerous enough without putting themselves into stupid situations like the Frederick street incident where even the Taoiseach is questioning whether or not the balaclavas could have been perceived was appropriate or not .

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote: »

I get your point but even the experts now do say that Home First is the way to go, it's hard for someone to go through detox or rehab and then come out and have to go back to staying in hostels where drugs and drink are the norm.

Anyone who thinks that personal home ownership is a solution for someone experiencing detox, is talking through their arse.

Rehab is the place to detox, and there are similar facilities for people coming out of detox.

Independent living is a question that arises way, way after that. I guarantee you, nobody who knows the first thing about addiction will say otherwise.

davo10

BBFAN wrote: »

Can you please answer the question?

What question?

Property owners have a right to do whatever they want with their property as long as it is legal.

Here's a question for you, is the Frederick property owner doing anything illegal by not developing the property?

mynamejeff

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Firstly, that's a disgrace and I hope the bastards that done that get caught and given the maximum penalty applicable to their disgusting crime.

However, that story is about a Lithuanian heroin gang involved in serious organised crime.

The way the above post was constructed, I mistakenly thought that it was implying protesters (of some sort) followed a guard home and sprayed acid on him.

Not saying it was deliberately misleading, but it was misleading none the less.

One of the dangers of being a guard I suppose, the job can be dangerous enough without putting themselves into stupid situations like the Frederick street incident where even the Taoiseach is questioning whether or not the balaclavas could have been perceived was appropriate or not .

i dont think any one said that these specific people used acid but they are going to great lengths to identify and intimidate gardai , .

fairy sure you cant link facebook pages but search saoirse keane. who predictable when to he school of hard knocks and you ll see how she is encouraging people to attack individual gardai.

as for thier involvement in this incident they were present to assist in the enforcement of a lawful court order against people who had ignored at least one previous court order ,

and i dont think either side has any faith in leo for law enforcement advice

Topgear on Dave

Deleted User wrote: »

Louth County Council have admitted that they're financially broke, though, and don't have anything left in their housing budget.

For the crack I looked up what Louth are doing with the LPT in 2017.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/argus/news/local-property-tax-to-remain-unchanged-36144103.html

"Cllr Marianne Butler of the Green Party proposed that they increase it by 15 per cent, which would raise €1.59million which she wanted ring fenced for social housing."

"Director of Housing Mr Joe McGuinness said that if Cllr Butler's proposal was carried, there would be no constraints on the council in regards to taking people off the housing list."


Result: They did not increase it and are doing their best to try to cut it back. :pac::rolleyes:

Wheeliebin30

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

For the crack I looked up what Louth are doing with the LPT in 2017.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/argus/news/local-property-tax-to-remain-unchanged-36144103.html

"Cllr Marianne Butler of the Green Party proposed that they increase it by 15 per cent, which would raise €1.59million which she wanted ring fenced for social housing."

"Director of Housing Mr Joe McGuinness said that if Cllr Butler's proposal was carried, there would be no constraints on the council in regards to taking people off the housing list."


Result: They did not increase it and are doing their best to try to cut it back. :pac::rolleyes:

The councils are proving to be utterly useless.

tayto lover

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

The councils are proving to be utterly useless.

SF have the majority of councillors in my area.
I'll be asking them why they are neglecting the homeless by allowing the empty council houses remain idle. Can't be that hard to paint them or very costly. They are losing rental income too.

BBFAN

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that personal home ownership is a solution for someone experiencing detox, is talking through their arse.

Rehab is the place to detox, and there are similar facilities for people coming out of detox.

Independent living is a question that arises way, way after that. I guarantee you, nobody who knows the first thing about addiction will say otherwise.

Wrong on all counts there Tyrant, I normally like your posts but you're just coming across as an arrogant asshole now.

I've experienced both alcohol and drug addiction personally and would never have made it to recovery without a home to go to. I said AFTER rehab, you obviously didn't read my post.

Also, Home First is a professional initiative. Are those professionals also speaking through their arses?

BBFAN

davo10 wrote: »

What question?

Property owners have a right to do whatever they want with their property as long as it is legal.

Here's a question for you, is the Frederick property owner doing anything illegal by not developing the property?

Okay, for the third time, since you can't be bother to read it:

1. Would you be happy if every house on your block was boarded up?
2. If not, what would you do about it?

I won't answer any further questions until you answer mine. Answering a question with a question is simply a deflection technique when you're caught out.

Topgear on Dave

tayto lover wrote: »

SF have the majority of councillors in my area.
I'll be asking them why they are neglecting the homeless by allowing the empty council houses remain idle. Can't be that hard to paint them or very costly. They are losing rental income too.

They wanted maximum tax cuts in Louth.

Its probably a good bit more than just a lick of paint that one needs if its boarded up.

If its cold it could get damp, 20k might not go too far with a refurb.

davo10

BBFAN wrote: »

Okay, for the third time, since you can't be bother to read it:

1. Would you be happy if every house on your block was boarded up?
2. If not, what would you do about it?

I won't answer any further questions until you answer mine. Answering a question with a question is simply a deflection technique when you're caught out.

What has that question got to do with this thread?

I'm answering your question with this question because, to point out the obvious, this thread has to do with the occupation of a property in Dublin where the street is not full of boarded up properties.

I'm beginning to see the calibre of the muppets occupying the property if this is your thought process. It's nonsense.

BBFAN

davo10 wrote: »

What has that question got to do with this thread?

I'm answering your question with this question because, to point out the obvious, this thread has to do with the occupation of a property in Dublin where the street is not full of boarded up properties.

I'm beginning to see the calibre of the muppets occupying the property if this is your thought process. It's nonsense.

No answer so, fine.

davo10

BBFAN wrote: »

No answer so, fine.

You will have to think about it. The answer is there, you just may not understand it.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

for the protection of the protesters. we can't have masked unidentifiable hoodies roming around with the backing of hard to identify gardai. it's not how a democratic state works.



their reasons for being masked aren't valid. if wearing the balaclava, the gardai involved are required to wear a helmet on top of the balaclava as the equipment as a whole works to protect them from either dangerous substances or other. the equipment isn't for protecting identity. the hoodies on the other hand had no valid reason to be masked given they were there as part of a legitimate act of law enforcement. i don't care why exactly the protesters may want to know their identity, i care that by hiding their identity there is the potential that should an incident have happened via these individuals, it could be impossible to bring a prosecution against them.

Well thankfully we live in a country where the government cannot dictate to any of us what we should of shouldn't wear.
There's no law at all to force people to show their face in public.
It makes no difference to the safety of protestors or not. None at all.

Galwayguy35

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.

So how did they get in to the premises?

One would imagine the door was locked so they had to force it to gain entry which would have been damage to the owners property.

McMurphy

bubblypop wrote: »

Well thankfully we live in a country where the government cannot dictate to any of us what we should of shouldn't wear.
There's no law at all to force people to show their face in public.
It makes no difference to the safety of protestors or not. None at all.

Must nip down the chipper in the nip so

Galwayguy35

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.

Probably a topic for another thread but does anyone ever ask why they were boarded up in the first place?

Here in Galway the reason was the people they were given to wrecked them and stripped anything of value from the house as well.

And its working people who foot the bill to repair the house.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Must nip down the chipper in the nip so

Please do.

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

Well thankfully we live in a country where the government cannot dictate to any of us what we should of shouldn't wear.
There's no law at all to force people to show their face in public.
It makes no difference to the safety of protestors or not. None at all.

in relation to cases like this i have to disagree. anyone working in any kind of an enforcement capacity should be identifiable in some way.
i'd argue that masked unidentifiable hoodies does make a difference to the safety of protesters on the basis that should those individuals over-stepped the mark, it would likely not be possible for the victim to take a prosecution against the hooded individual or individuals because they wouldn't be able to identify them when required.

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote: »

Wrong on all counts there Tyrant, I normally like your posts but you're just coming across as an arrogant asshole now.

I've experienced both alcohol and drug addiction personally and would never have made it to recovery without a home to go to. I said AFTER rehab, you obviously didn't read my post.

Also, Home First is a professional initiative. Are those professionals also speaking through their arses?

I'm not familiar with Home First, do they have a website?

Just to be clear, in case we have our wires crossed, of course people coming out of Rehab need to have stable accommodation. But they also have tremendous support needs.

I'm no expert, and having experienced this, you're obviously more qualified than I to talk about it, but I do have some limited experience in this area. Any housing chairty that I'm aware of organises its accommodation for those in recovery on a phased basis. That means that people in recovery (i.e. after rehab) are initially housed in a supported setting, and living alone in their own accommodation is something that is only considered much further down the line, as they become more independent.

That seems to me like a sensible approach. I'm sure you'd agree that Rehab is not a one-stop shop, where the addict is suddenly cured and can immediately go back to independent living?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

in relation to cases like this i have to disagree. anyone working in any kind of an enforcement capacity should be identifiable in some way.
i'd argue that masked unidentifiable hoodies does make a difference to the safety of protesters on the basis that should those individuals over-stepped the mark, it would likely not be possible for the victim to take a prosecution against the hooded individual or individuals because they wouldn't be able to identify them when required.

Of course a prosecution could be taken.
Injured party make complaint to gardai, Gardai investigate & they identify the offender.
How would seeing someone's face identify them anyway? Unless the injured party actually knew the offender?

Rules should be the same for everyone.

the_syco

BBFAN wrote: »

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

Protesters protest in buildings that will matter. It seems this lot has protested in buildings that have/had been applying for planning permission to turn the places into apartments.

davo10 wrote: »

The muppets who occupied them have possibly ensured the landlord will get planning for the property and it will come to market with high cost rental units.

At least one of them, 41 Belvedere Place, has been granted Planning Permission.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What exactly is the difference between the average person on the homeless list, and the rough sleeper, except that the latter typically refuses to take an offer of accommodation?

The latter often refuse to stay sober in the council hostels (that usually have drink in them anyway). The former will be on the housing list, and often are in the process to get a house.

end of the road wrote: »

the hoodies on the other hand had no valid reason to be masked given they were there as part of a legitimate act of law enforcement. i don't care why exactly the protesters may want to know their identity

They hide their identities, so that they don't get harassed on the street.

end of the road wrote: »

it is, but hoodies with no identity being given backing by the gardai is also a main issue.

Did the gardai enter the premises where the people were being evicted from?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Curious as to how they're identifying them, seeing as they were masked?

The Gardai have numbers on them. Match the number, find the Gardai.

BBFAN wrote: »

The people on here who say property owners have every right to do what they want with their properties, I'm interested:

1. Would you be happy if every house on your block was boarded up and left empty for years?
2. Would you be happy if 30 people moved into one house next door to you?

If you wouldn't be happy with that then what would you do about it? Just put up with it because it's someone else's property so they're entitled to do whatever they want with it?

Regarding the 1st question; are you referring to ghost estates?
Regarding the 2nd question; I'd report it to the council, as it's overcrowding.

BBFAN wrote: »

The people on here who say property owners have every right to do what they want with their properties

Once it meets planning permission, they do.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

One of the dangers of being a guard I suppose, the job can be dangerous enough without putting themselves into stupid situations like the Frederick street incident

You go where you are sent. You may see more Gardai in balaclavas in the future, depending on how these Gardai get harassed.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Probably a topic for another thread but does anyone ever ask why they were boarded up in the first place?

Harder to trespass, and easier to spot if the board is missing.

BBFAN wrote: »

Also, Home First is a professional initiative. Are those professionals also speaking through their arses?

Give me a link to the website? Googling "home first" gives me https://www.firstireland.ie

Auguste Comte

Interesting article by Mick Clifford in today's Examiner.

The new Garda commissioner, Drew Harris, has at least acknowledged that how things were handled demands further inquiry. And the Policing Authority has expressed its concern through chairperson, Josephine Feehily.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

How would seeing someone's face identify them anyway? Unless the injured party actually knew the offender?

By giving a description of the person's face to Gardaí, just like when any crime is committed... "he has red hair, mid-forties", etc. How is this difficult to understand?

the_syco wrote: »

The Gardai have numbers on them. Match the number, find the Gardai.

That's not public information though. You can't just google a badge number.

BBFAN

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

I'm not familiar with Home First, do they have a website?

Apologies, it's called the Housing First initiative and it's advocated by Peter McVerry whom I think we can agree has excellent experience in dealing with the worst possible cases of homelessness.

Can't do links on my phone but a Google will get you there.

P_1

It's a very good protest idea but very very flawed in its execution in my eyes.

Ideally the properties should be occupied, when the injunction invariably rolls in then another property should be occupied and the property with the injunction on it left peacefully before the need for heavies etc.

Another option would be to start occupying the NAMA owned properties.

Box clever and public support across all the working class can be secured, then the government and the elites will really start shiiting their pants

McMurphy

bubblypop wrote: »

Of course a prosecution could be taken.
Injured party make complaint to gardai, Gardai investigate & they identify the offender.
How would seeing someone's face identify them anyway? Unless the injured party actually knew the offender?

Rules should be the same for everyone.

Is this a serious question?

You can do better than that, surely?

davo10

P_1 wrote: »

It's a very good protest idea but very very flawed in its execution in my eyes.

Ideally the properties should be occupied, when the injunction invariably rolls in then another property should be occupied and the property with the injunction on it left peacefully before the need for heavies etc.

Another option would be to start occupying the NAMA owned properties.

Box clever and public support across all the working class can be secured, then the government and the elites will really start shiiting their pants

Who are the elites? Property owners by any chance. I think you will find that a lot of working class people are also property owners and don't like the thought of grungy college kids taking over private property to get 15 mins of fame.

davo10

davo10 wrote: »

Who are the elites? Property owners by any chance. I think you will find that a lot of working class people are also property owners

If you're talking about investment property, then that is kinda totally at odds with the definition of working class, i.e. one whose income is earned by the sale of labour.

Even casting aside that definition, it's a bit odd to describe the owner of a capital investment worth hundreds of thousands of euro as 'working class'.