[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.
Wheeliebin30 wrote: » Heard it his name was Oisin
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.
corner of hells wrote: » Shame on you , shame on you , SHAME ON YOU....
Mongfinder General wrote: » Who the fcuk thinks they can have 4 bed house for free in a European capital city.
[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.
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.
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
optogirl wrote: » Nobody
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Laneyh wrote: » You think the activists are utter scum who would attack Garda's families ? What is your source for believing that ?
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?
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.
jam_mac_jam wrote: » Keep their families safe... not hysterical at all.
jam_mac_jam wrote: » No attacks though.. attempted doxing... so nothing then.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
