A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » As you can see, I am not claiming they were totally anonymous. They were effectively anonymous to anyone who would simply have been observing from the street, for example as a witness, and that's part of where the problem lies. As with any refusal to comply with a court order, the courts can imprison or fine individuals for contempt, the latter can be attached to earnings from employment or social welfare income.
dav3 wrote: » What a strange story. It's seems to have backfired for a lot of people. Fine Gael desperate to throw off their 'posh boys' image and being out of their depth, are now viewed as being out of touch with the working class, stumbling from one disaster to another as the housing crisis worsens. A new Garda commissioner with a suspect past, trying to act like Dirty Harry in his first few days, decides to bring in the riot squad wearing balaclavas, while the ordinary rank and file walk around unmasked. A slum landlord who's hired goons turn up in an untaxed van which probably wouldn't pass the NCT, a van which also has a history of being used as a tactical aid unit in the greater manchester police. A curious case indeed.
seamus wrote: » I did think it was the Shinnerbots making the most noise about this alright, I just wasn't sure until you posted this. It's ironic considering your own love affair with balaclavas.
Edgware wrote: » Just shows the Shinner scumbag attitude hasnt gone away. Usual scrotes with tattoos and fags in the arse pocket. Varadkar and Martin correct to keep them outside the door. Sooner or later people will see through the Shinner magic beans policies
jobbridge4life wrote: » If anyone thinks AGS press office, or An Taoiseach woke up today and thought 'wow what a stunning PR coup we've pulled off' they are beyond deluded.
Hurrache wrote: » Do you actually think the taoiseach had any involvement in such mundane day to day operations of the Gardai, I'd be surprised if the commissioner had any involvement. The Gardai are in the job of applying and enforcing the law, not PR.
cursai wrote: » A lot of lunatics in this thread. But I just want to add something. I saw earlier someone comparing this to Rosa Parks and I would like to clarify a bit. These protestors don't compare to Rosa Parks. Firstly, Rosa Parks was a fraud and her bus protest was orchestrated.
cursai wrote: » A lot of lunatics in this thread. But I just want to add something. I saw earlier someone comparing this to Rosa Parks and I would like to clarify a bit. These protestors don't compare to Rosa Parks. Firstly, Rosa Parks was a fraud and her bus protest was orchestrated. The famous photo of her sitting on a bus has her sitting beside white journalists who were asked to attend. Secondly she didn't stink of booze and welfare scrounging.Thirdly I hope the poor Gardai on duty are wearing gloves when they scrape their heads off the pavement.
cursai wrote: » A lot of lunatics in this thread. But I just want to add something. I saw earlier someone comparing this to Rosa Parks and I would like to clarify a bit. These protestors don't compare to Rosa Parks. Firstly, Rosa Parks was a fraud and her bus protest was orchestrated. The famous photo of her sitting on a bus has her sitting beside white journalists who were asked to attend. Secondly she didn't stink of booze and welfare scrounging. Thirdly I hope the poor Gardai on duty are wearing gloves when they scrape their heads off the pavement.
RWCNT wrote: » Oh yes, so many lunatics. You, on the other hand, are clearly a very balanced person. :rolleyes:
zapitastas wrote: » A little ironic you calling other people lunatics and coming out with that. The Rosa Parks photo was staged and she wasn't a meek woman on her way home. She was an active civil rights activist of many years and endangered her wellbeing by taking a stand that way she did. Calling her a fraud is pretty low. Maybe the term you were looking for is uppity
cursai wrote: » No YOU on the other hand are a clearly balanced person. lol ROFL. Is that how these passive aggressive meek insults work?
RWCNT wrote: » Not at all, I'm making fun of you for calling other people lunatics while appearing like an angry nut yourself due to the content of your post. You're just saying "no u".
Amirani wrote: » I see the latest destination is a house on Belvedere Place, which just recently received planning permission for conversion into 4 separate apartments. How exactly is occupying this house and preventing development going to help the housing issues we have?
cursai wrote: » No no no. I'm making fun of YOU for call other people lunatics whilst appearing etc etc..... Wow, I'm enjoying this verbal exchange. I hope its intellectually vacated enough.
riffmongous wrote: » Because it's getting attention and keeping the issue in the public eye and being talked about, it's not rocket science
Thatnastyboy wrote: » All I can see on social media today is people calling for compulsory possession and asset stripping of property in order to give it up for permanent housing for the homeless?
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » Why is that so awful? We do that to build motorways, it's called compulsory purchase.
Thatnastyboy wrote: » CPO's would be fine by me, these people are calling for asset stripping, soviet style.
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » Have you seen a spokesperson or any politician involved with the protest saying that? Or are you talking about your friends on social media who may not even have been present?
Kiith wrote: » If it's not the Garda's responsibility to remove people from a property after a court orders them to leave, who's responsibility is it?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e0a528cbc0a6c66fda22b51f3da0d9d1.svg)
