The Frederick St protest and reaction

Hurrache

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Policing with consent is not just some empty rhetoric that I came up with, it is a well-known principle in policing that describes the trust and consent afforded to an accountable, transparent civil police force.

So what was not accountable and transparent in this instance?

Guy:Incognito

zapitastas wrote: »

Calm down there buddy

Contribute something useful there, pal.


Even an auld "shame, shame, shame on you" chant or something

Wheeliebin30

People break into a home illegally then scream peaceful protest.

What’s peaceful about breaking into someone’s house??????

mynamejeff

_Puma_ wrote: »

According to a picture on twitter the clapped out van had a northern reg before Gardai told them to take them off. New RUC commissioner must have got some of his loyalist mates down.

The extendable batons some of the Gardai are holding aren't liscenced for the Gardai either.

why did you post this ?

you obviously haven't a clue what you are talking about and are to dim to learn before you shout your mouth off online

extendable batons are not licence items
if they were the gardai wouldn't need a licence
the gardai in the picture are in public order gear
public order gear is fire retardant over alls and face covering some padding . baseball caps or helmet and boots.
And non extendable hard plastic batons

please dont comment unless or until you have any idea what you are talking about

its embarrassing

jobbridge4life

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Have a read of the thread there like a good lad and you'll see plenty of reasons the gards might not want their faces shown.

Everyone is peaceful until they're not...... (and they they blame the gardai, like they're supposed to stand there looking at them for months on end until they decide they are good and ready to leave. But also the gardai should be tackling all the other crime too)

I am confident that AGS might not want their faces shown, and that there may be valid reasons for same. I am confident they might want weapons too, and to bar individuals from taking photographs of their actions, and so on and so forth. None of this means they should be entitled to do so, or that they exercised the right to do so correctly in this instance.

jimmycrackcorm

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's already been posted. The act doesn't apply to these people.

Eggs For Dinner

Lux23 wrote: »

This was absolutely appalling. The Gardai should not be acting as a private security force for landlords nevermind turning up wearing balaclavas. I haven't been involved in these protests at all, but I will attend one if I can.

The occupiers were in that house illegally and the Gardaí were executing a court order. they were performing their duty to uphold the law. Off you go and have a good old protest. While you're at one, make sure somebody is minding your home in case these lads move in while you're out. If they do, you'll be on the phone immediately to.......The Gardai

For Forks Sake

zapitastas wrote: »

Looks like some of his old contacts in the uvf got a call. Wonder how the tendering process went

jobbridge4life

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

People break into a home illegally then scream peaceful protest.

What’s peaceful about breaking into someone’s house??????

Was this abandoned building a 'home'? I think you will find that the protestors undertook this action precisely because this abandoned property isn't a home.

Peaceful occupation of abandoned property is a feature of political protest and housing direct action across Europe.

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

So what was not accountable and transparent in this instance?

wearing balaclavas when undertaking policing duties, possibly whilst using force (but under any circumstances) impedes accountability (eg witness accounts are severely limited); there's also a psychological dimension in that people who believe they have an enhanced degree of anonymity tend to act-out in a more aggressive and confrontational manner than might ordinarily be expected (that's the whole basis for the nonsense spewed by keyboard warriors, after all).

Amirani wrote: »

How was it violent exactly? Are you just making things up?

Gardaí have said that the eviction was peaceful:

Oh! Well then!

AlekSmart

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'd include sheriffs and bailiffs in with other state officers, as their roles have a statutory basis. Were any of the men who were enforcing the court order bailiffs or sheriffs?

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/0c609d7abff72c1c80256d2b0045bb64/568aa06b506c092780257c900046a5b4?OpenDocument

They would'nt have to be.

The Court Order (or notification) would have to be served by a duly notarised offical,ie: a summons server (or person authorised by them).

The salient point here,is that the considerable additional expense now incurred in regaining possession of this (or any) property,will eventually be factored into the selling or redevelopment price,and will further increase the eventual purchase price on the open market.

The only losers here,will be those who might be seeking to purchase such premises for either their own use,or for social housing initiatives.

Well done all :rolleyes:

seamus

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I am confident that AGS might not want their faces shown, and that there may be valid reasons for same. I am confident they might want weapons too, and to bar individuals from taking photographs of their actions, and so on and so forth. None of this means they should be entitled to do so, or that they exercised the right to do so correctly in this instance.

Considering the vitriol pouring out online at the moment, I would say the Garda were bang on in this instance to exercise their right to cover their faces.

You'd have all manner of lunatic plastering their faces all over the place asking people to identify them and find out where they live.

The "protestors" through their disgusting behaviour over the last 18 hours have proven that the Garda response was measured perfectly against the conditions.

Guy:Incognito

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I am confident that AGS might not want their faces shown, and that there may be valid reasons for same. I am confident they might want weapons too, and to bar individuals from taking photographs of their actions, and so on and so forth. None of this means they should be entitled to do so, or that they exercised the right to do so correctly in this instance.

They clearly do have the right to.


See, right there in the pictures they are doing it

And if it prevents ***** from putting up pictures of them on social media and groups finding out who they are and harassing them, then I'm all for it. I'm sure you'd be grand with me taking putting a picture of you on twitter and whipping up a mob to find out who you are then maybe following you a bit. Maybe stick picture of your partner and kids up? All fair game as long as I decide I dislike the job you do, yeah?

zapitastas

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Contribute something useful there, pal.

Well if the new Garda commissioner could not see how the optics of those photos are a problem then it does not bode well for his tenure. There are persistent claims of covering up collusion for uvf members that had extensive links into the RUC.The fact that the RUC facilitated the murder of innocent civilians and actively continue to cover for them makes him inapprppaite for the role. The emergence of those photos are not very helpful for him .

Guy:Incognito

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Oh! Well then!

You seem confident it's not true. Should be easy to throw up some evidence so.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

You'd have all manner of lunatic plastering their faces all over the place asking people to identify them and find out where they live.

Despite the fact that this didn't actually happen with the previous eviction, in Summerhill, when Gardai did not cover their faces?

What are you basing your conjecture on? Has this ever actually happened here, that we know of?

jobbridge4life

seamus wrote: »

Considering the vitriol pouring out online at the moment, I would say the Garda were bang on in this instance to exercise their right to cover their faces.

You'd have all manner of lunatic plastering their faces all over the place asking people to identify them and find out where they live.

That argument can be extended to all policing action. Perhaps we should have niquab clad police as a matter of course?

seamus wrote: »

The "protestors" through their disgusting behaviour over the last 18 hours have proven that the Garda response was measured perfectly against the conditions.

What disgusting behaviour specifically? It is funny. I have yet to see specialised AGS units turn up masked to the homes or places of businesses of the many slum-landlords exposed in the recent past.

Hurrache

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

wearing balaclavas when undertaking policing duties, possibly whilst using force (but under any circumstances) impedes accountability (eg witness accounts are severely limited); there's also a psychological dimension in that people who believe they have an enhanced degree of anonymity tend to act-out in a more aggressive and confrontational manner than might ordinarily be expected (that's the whole basis for the nonsense spewed by keyboard warriors, after all).

They were undertaking a specific duty, and you know that well. Lots of hearsay also in your posts about what actually happened.

And 'psychological dimension', maybe they'll wear flowers in their belts next time.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What are you basing your conjecture on? Has this ever actually happened here, that we know of?

Yes, and you know that too.

jobbridge4life

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They clearly do have the right to.


See, right there in the pictures they are doing it

YEs of course because we are aware that if a garda does it, it must be legal?

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And if it prevents ***** from putting up pictures of them on social media and groups finding out who they are and harassing them, then I'm all for it. I'm sure you'd be grand with me taking putting a picture of you on twitter and whipping up a mob to find out who you are then maybe following you a bit. Maybe stick picture of your partner and kids up? All fair game as long as I decide I dislike the job you do, yeah?

Any individual who engages in such harassment is answerable for such crimes in the ordinary course of events, and AGS should be well capable of pursuing them.

Hurrache

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That argument can be extended to all policing action. Perhaps we should have niquab clad police as a matter of course?



What disgusting behaviour specifically? It is funny. I have yet to see specialised AGS units turn up masked to the homes or places of businesses of the many slum-landlords exposed in the recent past.

On what basis, were the exposed slum landlords holding their tenants captive, as otherwise I don't see any reason why gardai would turn up at all, never mind to take them away.

Guy:Incognito

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Any individual who engages in such harassment is answerable for such crimes in the ordinary course of events, and AGS should be well capable of pursuing them.

And as we all know, once the authorities get involved and tell them to take the pictures and whatever down, all the activity would stop and all traces of the gards information would vanish from the Internet forever like it never happened............

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

They were undertaking a specific duty, and you know that well. Lots of hearsay also in your posts about what actually happened.

You say 'specific duty' as though it has some specific legal or technical meaning. It doesn't. They were assisting with an eviction from a semi derelict property, ffs, not handling an anti-terror operation.

And 'psychological dimension', maybe they'll wear flowers in their belts next time.

It's a pretty well known, not to mention obvious, phenomenon. You asked me what the problem with balaclavas are, and i've told you. Now you're doing the equivalent of speaking in a high pitched voice and making faces, just because you don't like the idea that yes, there is actually a problem with police forces undertaking fairly questionable duties, possibly involving force, whilst wearing balaclavas.

Guy:Incognito

jobbridge4life wrote: »

YEs of course because we are aware that if a garda does it, it must be legal?



.

You're free to report them, quoting the relevant acts and whatnot.

seamus

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Despite the fact that this didn't actually happen with the previous eviction, in Summerhill, when Gardai did not cover their faces?

What are you basing your conjecture on? Has this ever actually happened here, that we know of?

What disgusting behaviour specifically? It is funny. I have yet to see specialised AGS units turn up masked to the homes or places of businesses of the many slum-landlords exposed in the recent past.

Well, you know, all you have to do is look. Accusations of; being black-and-tans, collusion with loyalists, failing in their public duties, assault, racism, and all manner of other treasonous acts which nobody engaged in last night, but nevertheless the homelessness industry have been whipping up their mob about today.

When it became known that the eviction was about to happen, the mob was whipped up and encouraged to attend to Frederick street to try and resist the eviction. Even though the occupants left peacefully and without incident, the mob outside decided to attack the Gardai and five of them got arrested.

Then they changed the narrative to try and claim that a bunch of anonymous, balaclava-clad Gardai had stormed the house, assaulted the occupiers and forcibly removed them from the premises, before cracking down on the "peaceful" protestors outside.

All lies.

So, disgusting behaviour.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That argument can be extended to all policing action.

Sure it can. But one idiots putting up pictures because they got done for speeding won't get any responses. A braying mob will. Like I say, a measured response to the conditions.

jobbridge4life

Hurrache wrote: »

On what basis, were the exposed slum landlords holding their tenants captive, as otherwise I don't see any reason why gardai would turn up at all, never mind to take them away.

Were the protestors holding someone captive?

Guy:Incognito

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's a pretty well known, not to mention obvious, phenomenon. You asked me what the problem with balaclavas are, and i've told you. Now you're doing the equivalent of speaking in a high pitched voice and making faces, just because you don't like the idea that yes, there is actually a problem with police forces undertaking fairly questionable duties, possibly involving force, whilst wearing balaclavas.

And you don't like the idea that just because you keep saying "questionable duties" , it doesn't make it true.

Sir Oxman

aido79 wrote: »

That's not always the case. The tax system in Ireland for landlords limits any profit that can be made and the cost of getting a bad tenant can erode years of profit very quickly especially if a tenant decides they don't want to leave. What other country in the world gives a tenant the right to stay in a rental property for 6 years after only 6 months living there(part IV tenancy)?
There's good reason why so many landlords are selling up or choosing to leave properties vacant.

Loads.
it's the norm in normal countries and of much longer duration.

Sir Oxman

NIMAN wrote: »

But I'm sure those countries have strict rules if you are a scumbag and end up being a terrible tenant.

Not so in Ireland afaik.

And strict rules for scumbag landlords

zapitastas

seamus wrote: »

Well, you know, all you have to do is look. Accusations of; being black-and-tans, collusion with loyalists, failing in their public duties, assault, racism, and all manner of other treasonous acts which nobody engaged in last night, but nevertheless the homelessness industry have been whipping up their mob about today.

When it became known that the eviction was about to happen, the mob was whipped up and encouraged to attend to Frederick street to try and resist the eviction. Even though the occupants left peacefully and without incident, the mob outside decided to attack the Gardai and five of them got arrested.

Then they changed the narrative to try and claim that a bunch of anonymous, balaclava-clad Gardai had stormed the house, assaulted the occupiers and forcibly removed them from the premises, before cracking down on the "peaceful" protestors outside.

All lies.

So, disgusting behaviour.

Sure it can. But one idiots putting up pictures because they got done for speeding won't get any responses. A braying mob will. Like I say, a measured response to the conditions.

If they wanted to avoid accusations of collusion with loyalists they should not have empoyed one to front the organisation.

Wheeliebin30

Niall Boylan on fire again.