The Frederick St protest and reaction

Wheeliebin30

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’m not sure what figure was mentioned, nor can I remember who was being interviewed. Possibly on Sean O’Rourke Monday. I think he was a from Dun Laoghaire Rathdown.

Heard it his name was Oisin

Wheeliebin30

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Heard it his name was Oisin

Found it. https://www.rte.ie/radio1/today-with-sean-o-rourke/programmes/2018/0907/992217-today-with-sean-orourke-friday-7-september-2018/?clipid=102920373#102920373
“Councils and Housing
Don't blame us say councillors as Government threatens to take over housing powers. Ossian Smyth, Green Party councillor for Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown, Solidarity councillor for Dublin Fingal Matt Waine, and Damien English, Minister of State in the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government discussed this with Sean O'Rourke this morning”

Wheeliebin30

end of the road still asleep??


Zzzxxxxxxxx

Mongfinder General

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's a difference between "pay for nothing" and "pay what's reasonable". Do you know much about the history of Irish independence? You realise that a similar situation with extortionate rents was one of the main triggers for the 20th century independence movement, right? "Fair Rent" was one of the main three demands of the Land League which ultimately evolved into the Republican movement.

This is not a new phenomenon. The mainstream notion that land is an entirely private commodity and not to some extent a national resource is the new phenomenon, it's only been mainstream since the 1980s FFS.

You’ll be telling me that property is theft next. There is no comparison between poor tenant farmers being burned out of their homes and parasites who won’t work a day of their life wanting free and nominal rent housing. There are so called homeless people refusing housing, better than what I have because it doesn’t meet their needs.

Look around you and see what is happening. When a husband and wife with a family are taking home less money than an unemployed single mother or father with 6 kids then we’re headed for disaster.

Your reference to history is factual but society has changed and expectations are unrealistic nowadays. Who the fcuk thinks they can have 4 bed house for free in a European capital city. They can do a Cromwell and fcuk off to Leitrim where a house can be rented for €1000.

10000maniacs

corner of hells wrote: »

Shame on you , shame on you , SHAME ON YOU....

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

optogirl

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Who the fcuk thinks they can have 4 bed house for free in a European capital city.

Nobody

Sweet.Science

Leeches

Guy:Incognito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We already have it, according to a Councillor interviewed on the radio a few days ago. It’s very wisely being used to buy or rent properties. Not BUILD. I kid you not.

Hand all the people currently in rented accommodation a free 2nd hand tent from electric picnic and tell them to be on their way that you'll ring them in a year when their houses are ready so.

Or maybe the government should just stop paying the rent and tell the landlords tough **** they're housing these people for free till they build houses with the money

Guy:Incognito

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Property rights are not unlimited and absolute, there's a clause in the constitution limiting such rights for the public good. The point of argument is that - in the midst of an extreme housing crisis - whether those rights should be limited via vacancy tariffs; limitations on short term letting, etc.

The 'but it's my property what business of yours god bless the unquestioned market' shtick is quite juvenile, though I understand that it sounds good to people. There's a very complex issue developing that has multiple causes. The issue may impact on our continued economic and social development as a nation - and certainly that of our urban areas. We might have to limit the profit potential of asset speculators as one of the potential fixes. That's the constitution. Suck it up.

I don't condone the methods of these protesters, but they are shining a direct light on an issue that we have to ask questions around.

Deciding that everyone that wants a house should be given one in Dublin by taking the houses off owners is hardly fair either.

What of all the ghost estates? Just because they are not in the area the person wants? Expectations need to be managed.

If you desperately need a home, then you should be prepared to move location. Plenty that had to buy their own did and do it.

10000maniacs

riffmongous wrote: »

Keepng it idle it reduces the supply for that area, forcing prices up, so they can make more money from selling it later without any of the effort of renting it

If somebody owns a property lock stock and barrel, what is the problem?
Lefties don't get the ownership concept.
Everything to them is fair game if it is not nailed down.

Mongfinder General

optogirl wrote: »

Nobody

Wrong

DChancer

Mongfinder General wrote: »

You’ll be telling me that property is theft next. There is no comparison between poor tenant farmers being burned out of their homes and parasites who won’t work a day of their life wanting free and nominal rent housing. There are so called homeless people refusing housing, better than what I have because it doesn’t meet their needs.

Look around you and see what is happening. When a husband and wife with a family are taking home less money than an unemployed single mother or father with 6 kids then we’re headed for disaster.

Your reference to history is factual but society has changed and expectations are unrealistic nowadays. Who the fcuk thinks they can have 4 bed house for free in a European capital city. They can do a Cromwell and fcuk off to Leitrim where a house can be rented for €1000.

+1000

jam_mac_jam

While I completely agree that the Garda have to do their job. Which is to uphold any court order to evict them.  I find the wearing of balaclavas and the presence of private security very sinister indeed.

123balltv

Niall Boylan will be good today.

BPKS

A spokesperson for the "Take Back the City" group, Sneachta McDiarmuida O'Neill said............

Thatnastyboy

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

While I completely agree that the Garda have to do their job. Which is to uphold any court order to evict them.  I find the wearing of balaclavas and the presence of private security very sinister indeed.

Nothing sinister about it at all imo,

It's a better alternative than having your face plastered all over social media and harrassed in your daily life & at home - for doing your job.

Remember - even some water meter installers were followed home and intimidated by 'peaceful protesters'

jam_mac_jam

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

While I completely agree that the Garda have to do their job. Which is to uphold any court order to evict them.  I find the wearing of balaclavas and the presence of private security very sinister indeed.

Were the private security not there to carry out a Court order and evict the protesters, with the Gardai there to ensure things were carried out legally?

jam_mac_jam

My impression was that legally you have to be indefinable acting in a security capacity for obvious reasons. Including the private security. Its sinister not to show your face when acting in this capacity.
This isn't the cartels we are talking about here. A bit over the top.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

Were the private security not there to carry out a Court order and evict the protesters, with the Gardai there to ensure things were carried out legally?

Sssh you - none of that "truth" stuff!!!!!

Hurrache

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

My impression was that legally you have to be indefinable acting in a security capacity for obvious reasons. Including the private security. Its sinister not to show your face when acting in this capacity.
This isn't the cartels we are talking about here. A bit over the top.

It was already explained in the thread. What 'legality' are you thinking of?

And based on how the goons protesting over having to pay for water behaved, it's perfectly understandable that anyone on the opposite side of the fence to any similar protest these days will want to protect their identity.

jam_mac_jam

Deleted User wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

While I completely agree that the Garda have to do their job. Which is to uphold any court order to evict them.  I find the wearing of balaclavas and the presence of private security very sinister indeed.

Were the private security not there to carry out a Court order and evict the protesters, with the Gardai there to ensure things were carried out legally?

I wasn't aware of that. I presumed the Gardaí were upholding the court order.

Laneyh

CeilingFly wrote: »

Because utter scum and I mean the worst possible scum you can imagine are behind this and scum of that ilk would have no issue in personal attacks on a Garda's family.

You think the activists are utter scum who would attack Garda's families ?

What is your source for believing that ?

There were only around 5 people in the property at the time who all left peacefully.

There may have been some shared blame for clashes outside of the property but
balaclavas, pepper spray, batons and dogs seems a tad excessive for some people shouting slogans and videoing

muddypaws

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

While I completely agree that the Garda have to do their job. Which is to uphold any court order to evict them.  I find the wearing of balaclavas and the presence of private security very sinister indeed.

I completely agree. What kind of society are we living in where upholders of law and order have to hide their identity to keep themselves and their families safe. Very sinister and the use of intimidation against people doing their job needs to be addressed properly.

PlaneSpeeking

Laneyh wrote: »

You think the activists are utter scum who would attack Garda's families ?

What is your source for believing that ?

EXPERIENCE!!!! Ever heard of Jobstown* ???

* the least aptly named town in the history of the planet btw.

Amirani

Laneyh wrote: »

You think the activists are utter scum who would attack Garda's families ?

What is your source for believing that ?

There's already attempted doxxing going on on Facebook and Twitter over this. There was abuses of Gardai and water installation personnel and their families during the water protests, any reason to believe this would be different?

jam_mac_jam

Amirani wrote: »

Laneyh wrote: »

You think the activists are utter scum who would attack Garda's families ?

What is your source for believing that ?

There's already attempted doxxing going on on Facebook and Twitter over this. There was abuses of Gardai and water installation personnel and their families during the water protests, any reason to believe this would be different?

No attacks though.. attempted doxing... so nothing then.

jam_mac_jam

muddypaws wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

While I completely agree that the Garda have to do their job. Which is to uphold any court order to evict them.  I find the wearing of balaclavas and the presence of private security very sinister indeed.

I completely agree. What kind of society are we living in where upholders of law and order have to hide their identity to keep themselves and their families safe. Very sinister and the use of intimidation against people doing their job needs to be addressed properly.

Keep their families safe... not hysterical at all.

PlaneSpeeking

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Keep their families safe... not hysterical at all.

To misquote Squire Dannaher in The Quiet Man, "so the AAA's part of this too...?"

Amirani

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

No attacks though.. attempted doxing... so nothing then.

1. It was less than 24 hours ago
2. They were wearing balaclavas

People were abused outside of work during the water protests, that's not "nothing".

PlaneSpeeking

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

No attacks though.. attempted doxing... so nothing then.

Yeah let's wait for the idiots to succeed eh ?

Jesus - "full time scum defender" was never a career choice when I was a girl.