nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Frederick St protest and reaction

guylikeme

Surprised there wasnt a thread. Maybe there's just no shock factor any more to what happens.

Anyways..without debating who is right or wrong on this, id like to hear why Gardai wore Balacalavas. Seems a little overdone.

I am of course coming in late to all this, fill me in if i'm missing obvious detail.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

These Pints Are Savage wrote: »

Doesn't work at all. If I want to change my property then yes I have to get planning permission. If I live in a listed building I can't change it one bit. If I don't want to do anything I don't need permission and I don't have to worry about the Commissar coming to seize it. Feels good to live in a free country.

Are you deliberately not seeing the point, yeah?

The proposal is that "doing nothing with it" (ie not living in it, and allowing it to fall derelict) should be one ot the things that are added to the list of things that require permission from a Local Authority.

Do you get that or not?

10000maniacs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Been thinking of maybe turning my grannys old tenement gaff into a knockin shop.

She can move in with us for a while so as I can cash up for a while.

If the next door neighbours whinge I'll tell them to mind their own business so.

This time next year Rodders......

I'd much prefer living next to that than a squat full of lager swilling pay for nothing lefties urinating their dole away in my front garden because they can't afford a plumber.

Galwayguy35

Phoebas wrote: »

I see Paul Murphy TD has called the Gardai who were on duty tonight terrorists.

I'd say he's been missing the limelight.

Well his megaphone has been gathering dust since the water charges were abolished.

"Peaceful Protest"

_brendand_

These Pints Are Savage wrote: »

Doesn't work at all. If I want to change my property then yes I have to get planning permission. If I live in a listed building I can't change it one bit. If I don't want to do anything I don't need permission and I don't have to worry about the Commissar coming to seize it. Feels good to live in a free country.

So the principle you're stating is that there's a difference between *not allowing someone to do something* and *forcing them to do something*. I think the lines between the two start to get blurred pretty rapidly though, don't you? How about tax? Is it being forced to pay money to the government or is it not being allowed to not pay the money?

We should also establish the difference between what is legal and what is right/good. These are not and never have been the same thing, and everyone knows that so don't even pretend otherwise. Something that is illegal can be justifiable and even good and something that is wrong can be perfectly legal.

Kermit.de.frog

end of the road wrote: »

yes, i believe a lot of them likely do have jobs. it's not just the jobless that e protest and ask them i'm sure, if you really want to know the answer?

My humble opinion (not fact because I don't know for sure), my impression is that most of them

a: don't have jobs
b: live at home with parents

I could be totally wrong about that.

Most people I know around that age work part time or full time and some would be sympathetic - but none would have the time.

For Forks Sake

Never ceases to amaze me that some of those who shout the loudest attended schools where a years tuition fees would nearly cover a years rent ; Paul Murphy (St. Killians €5150 p/a and Institute of Education €7295 p/a), Richard Boyd-Barrett (St Michaels €5500) and Republican Harry Potter, Eoin O'Broin (Blackrock, €6900 p/a). Real friend of the working man and woman :rolleyes:

Gimme A Pound

I see the bullsh1t memes have started: one featuring a painting of impoverished tenants in 19th century rural Ireland being turfed out of their home, with no rights, no protections, no resources, no supports, brutal colonial power over them... side by side with a photo of the police and balaclava'd guys (why is that such a big deal? Oh yeah, it's not - but you gotta find outrage where you can!) from last night... as if they're comparable. Because the squatters who chose to break into and illegally occupy someone else's private property are OF COURSE just like the actual tenants who got evicted in the 19th century. :rolleyes:

How can they complain about dishonesty from Trump supporters etc and then pull that kind of sh1t? The hypocrisy is galling.

dxhound2005

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me that some of those who shout the loudest attended schools where a years tuition fees would nearly cover a years rent ; Paul Murphy (St. Killians €5150 p/a and Institute of Education €7295 p/a), Richard Boyd-Barrett (St Michaels €5500) and Republican Harry Potter, Eoin O'Broin (Blackrock, €6900 p/a). Real friend of the working man and woman :rolleyes:

You could have also included Mary Lou.

20Cent

Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »

I see the bullsh1t memes have started: one featuring a painting of impoverished tenants in 19th century rural Ireland being turfed out of their home, with no rights, no protections, no resources, no supports, brutal colonial power over them... side by side with a photo of the police and balaclava'd guys (why is that such a big deal? Oh yeah, it's not - but you gotta find outrage where you can!) from last night... as if they're comparable. Because the squatters who chose to break into and illegally occupy someone else's private property are OF COURSE just like the actual tenants who got evicted in the 19th century. :rolleyes:

How can they complain about dishonesty from Trump supporters etc and then pull that kind of sh1t? The hypocrisy is galling.

Memes aren't supposed to be taken literally.

Noveight

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Republican Harry Potter, Eoin O'Broin (Blackrock, €6900 p/a).

The most slappable face in Ireland.

hatrickpatrick

Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »

I see the bullsh1t memes have started: one featuring a painting of impoverished tenants in 19th century rural Ireland being turfed out of their home, with no rights, no protections, no resources, no supports, brutal colonial power over them... side by side with a photo of the police and balaclava'd guys (why is that such a big deal? Oh yeah, it's not - but you gotta find outrage where you can!) from last night... as if they're comparable. Because the squatters who chose to break into and illegally occupy someone else's private property are OF COURSE just like the actual tenants who got evicted in the 19th century. :rolleyes:

How can they complain about dishonesty from Trump supporters etc and then pull that kind of sh1t? The hypocrisy is galling.

What specifically is the difference between the people who got fleeced with unfair rents (hence the "Fair Rent" demand) and evicted (hence the "Fixity of Tenure" demand) during the Land League era, and those who are being fleeced with unfair rents and evicted if they can't pay them today? Break it down for me. Why was it ok to oppose the use of land as a pure commodity with no social responsibility element back in the late 19th century, but it's suddenly totally unacceptable and outside the Overton Window today?

Galwayguy35

It was on the news there now, some posh young wan basically said people delayed getting home because they blocked the traffic should have more important things to worry about.

The rest of them were dirty looking crusties.

McMurphy

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me that some of those who shout the loudest attended schools where a years tuition fees would nearly cover a years rent ; Paul Murphy (St. Killians €5150 p/a and Institute of Education €7295 p/a), Richard Boyd-Barrett (St Michaels €5500) and Republican Harry Potter, Eoin O'Broin (Blackrock, €6900 p/a). Real friend of the working man and woman :rolleyes:

Years rent in Dublin? What part?

And what relevance is it where someone's (presumably parents) sent them to be educated?

Are only politicians from low to middle income families allowed to point to crises of any shape or form within society or what?

If we use this train of thought, what righr would a wealthy/millionaire/landlord/politicians know about problems in some of the poorer regions in the state, and how dare they speak up or highlight them?

hatrickpatrick

DChancer wrote: »

A free forever home is not a right, nobody has the right to demand that "someone else pay for all my stuff"!

Question: Do you believe that healthcare is a right, or would you support a US-style "Can't afford to pay for cancer treatment? Die of cancer" system here? Yes or no?

For Forks Sake

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You could have also included Mary Lou.

I have her mentally blocked. But now that you mention it, Notre Dame des Missions (€4300 p/a). But they're closing next year.

20Cent

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me that some of those who shout the loudest attended schools where a years tuition fees would nearly cover a years rent ; Paul Murphy (St. Killians €5150 p/a and Institute of Education €7295 p/a), Richard Boyd-Barrett (St Michaels €5500) and Republican Harry Potter, Eoin O'Broin (Blackrock, €6900 p/a). Real friend of the working man and woman :rolleyes:

Why is it so hard to believe that someone with a privileged upbringing could care about others less privileged?

Gimme A Pound

20Cent wrote: »

Memes aren't supposed to be taken literally.

There is still supposed to be a grain of truth to them.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What specifically is the difference between the people who got fleeced with unfair rents (hence the "Fair Rent" demand) and evicted (hence the "Fixity of Tenure" demand) during the Land League era, and those who are being fleeced with unfair rents and evicted if they can't pay them today? Break it down for me. Why was it ok to oppose the use of land as a pure commodity with no social responsibility element back in the late 19th century, but it's suddenly totally unacceptable and outside the Overton Window today?

Seriously? It was crystal clear that I was talking about the disingenuous comparison of the people who chose to break into a private property and illegally occupy it... with actual tenants who were evicted so cruelly during the Land League era. I mean, I even said it.

I completely agree that there are disgustingly greedy landlords. Not sure why the government are to blame for them. The government are responsible for drafting legislation for sure, but these things take time unfortunately. And I'm certainly not sure how breaking into a private property - committing an offence that is going to lose your credibility - will effect change at government level.

Gimme A Pound

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Question: Do you believe that healthcare is a right, or would you support a US-style "Can't afford to pay for cancer treatment? Die of cancer" system here? Yes or no?

Why does it have to be one or the other? Your posts are as aggressive as those of some on the right. If anything, overall I find the right to be more accepting of my mostly centrist, sometimes liberal, views.

20Cent wrote: »

Why is it so hard to believe that someone with a privileged upbringing could care about others less privileged?

It's not in fairness - I prefer privileged people caring about those who are less privileged, than being rotten snobs. But what I don't agree with is privileged people pretending they are working-class and lecturing middle-class people.

hatrickpatrick

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Who has the most seats on Dublin City Council?

Sinn Fein.

What's that got to do with anything? I don't support SF and I never have, I think they're full of sh!t and they'll say anything to get elected before lazily wasting their time in office, like so many other political factions.

There is the fact that our local councils aren't fully democratic though, and that's something which needs to change ASAP. The idea that a democratically elected council can literally be "overruled" by the unelected bureaucracy behind it (as happened with the O'Devaney Gardens redevelopment and nearly happened with the St Teresa's Gardens redevelopment) is absolutely abhorrent.

By the way there is already 4,000 social houses built this year, how is it true the government don’t build social houses anymore?

They're not being built by the councils, they're being built by developers and part of the land is being sold to developers or on the private market. They're not being retained in council ownership.

Have you a costing for building houses for everyone who wants one?

I'm talking more about flats more so than houses to be honest. As far as I know, phase one of the Dolphin's Barn regeneration will cost somewhere in the region of €25 million and deliver roughly 100 flats, so that comes down to roughly €250,000 per unit. Do you have any inflation adjusted figures for how much it cost Herbert Simms to build that estate in the first place, if you're claiming that building those units today is so much more expensive than it was back then?

I reckon it’s 100,s of billions of euro.

Even the bank bailouts didn't cost that much FFS. This kind of hyperbole destroys your argument.

We don’t have that money it’s as simple as that.

I respectfully disagree. And even if we don't have the money do do all of it, we should be spending the money we do have on fixing some of it. Not wasting it on, to take one obvious recent example, hosting the head of an extremely wealthy international paedophile ring as a guest of the state, on the taxpayer's dime. In fact, that cost €32 million while as I've just pointed out, redeveloping the first three blocks of Dolphin House costs €25 million - does that not say it all? Discretionary spending by councils and government needs to end until after we've sorted this problem out.

hatrickpatrick

Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »

Why does it have to be one or the other? Your posts are as aggressive as those of some on the right. If anything, overall I find the right to be more accepting of my mostly centrist, sometimes liberal, views

How does it not have to be one or the other? You either have publicly funded healthcare for those who need it, or you don't. I don't see how you can have a half way house on that issue - unless you're suggesting that some people who can't pay for cancer treatment should be left to die, while others should be covered by public healthcare? I genuinely don't understand what you mean by this. And I respect everyone's right to an opinion contrary to mine, but that doesn't mean I'm going to shy away from explicitly and unapologetically spelling out my views. In my view, land is a public resource first and a private asset last, and that's the way it should be if our priority is a society which maximises quality of life across the board and minimises inequality.

hatrickpatrick

20Cent wrote: »

Why is it so hard to believe that someone with a privileged upbringing could care about others less privileged?

To those who believe that the priority in everything should be how someone can profit from it, the idea of caring about others' plight must be rather difficult to comprehend :pac:

Gimme A Pound

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It was on the news there now, some posh young wan basically said people delayed getting home because they blocked the traffic should have more important things to worry about.

The rest of them were dirty looking crusties.

Easy to say when you don't have to work because doddy finances you.

Trasna1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What specifically is the difference between the people who got fleeced with unfair rents (hence the "Fair Rent" demand) and evicted (hence the "Fixity of Tenure" demand) during the Land League era, and those who are being fleeced with unfair rents and evicted if they can't pay them today? Break it down for me. Why was it ok to oppose the use of land as a pure commodity with no social responsibility element back in the late 19th century, but it's suddenly totally unacceptable and outside the Overton Window today?

With the advent of rent control, have the not the majority of those evicted not been because the landlord wants to sell? Should people be prevented from selling their property?

Taylor365

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

'Normal' folk on 'normal' wages can't afford to buy or rent a central property in any major city in the world though, the way people are going on you'd swear it was an Irish only problem. It's not, not even close. it is very much the way of the western world - not saying it's 'right' or 'wrong' but it's definitely how it is in many many other places.

Those on housing lists shouldn't really be housed in a 2k/month apartment etc. in the city centre though. Those are for people of large means who can afford it. Equality can't be extended to bank accounts, or else it's just heading towards communism. I am not entirely sure what this squatting exercise wants to achieve beyond the raising of awareness and division of people.

Yup. This should be a straight forward transition. Live where you work - costs €€€€€.

The major problems that led us to the current housing predicament are twofold i believe:

1. Building Height Restrictions - Not having the ability to build high-rise buildings in the city centre has led to a massive urban sprawl. This spreads the land value far out from the city centre, drawing a nice 15km semi-circle of "un-affordability". There are the occasional estate where houses are between €150-250k, but for obvious reason. This also forces many businesses into Industrial estates/Business parks, where they could have easily occupied 1 floor of an office building.

2. Apartments Requiring Car Spaces - MANY more apartments could have been built in the city centre over the last decade if not for this ridiculous requirement.

hatrickpatrick

Seriously? It was crystal clear that I was talking about the disingenuous comparison of the people who chose to break into a private property and illegally occupy it... with actual tenants who were evicted so cruelly during the Land League era. I mean, I even said it.

so in the Land League era, you'd only have sympathy with the actual tenants who were evicted, and not those from other walks of Irish society who chose to show solidarity with them and help them in their fight for justice because they believed that it was the right thing to do?

I put it to you that if participation in every single social issue fight in history was restricted only to those who were the direct victims of it, and not those who merely sympathised with them ideologically, a great multitude of successful fights for justice and human rights would at best have taken far longer to win, and at worst would have been lost altogether. That sucks, but it's a fact. The fight for civil rights in Northern Ireland couldn't have been won without the help and support of people from outside that jurisdiction. The civil rights movement in the United States could not have been successful without the help of sympathetic white legislators already in power. The fight against apartheid couldn't have been successful without international pressure as well as pressure from the actual downtrodden.

Your position is quite odd, to be honest. I genuinely don't think I can get my head around it.

I completely agree that there are disgustingly greedy landlords. Not sure why the government are to blame for them. The government are responsible for drafting legislation for sure, but these things take time unfortunately.

If this was a case of a lethargic and inefficient political system simply taking too long to fix a problem it was trying to fix, that would be far less infuriating than what's actually happening, which is that ideologically, too many politicians are ideologically opposed to the idea that land is not a mere private cash cow. This is a deficit of ideology, not merely an inefficient system which is trying to fix the problem. As I said earlier in the thread, as stated by Fintan O'Toole in his incredibly accurate article about this, this whole issue can be summarised as a problem of "won't", not "can't".

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-opposition-to-social-housing-is-matter-of-ideology-not-economics-1.2397695

And I'm certainly not sure how breaking into a private property - committing an offence that is going to lose your credibility - will effect change at government level.

It's designed to place PR pressure on the government by highlighting the waste that's going on in the midst of a crisis, in order to shame and embarrass them into taking legislative action. Fairly standard practise right down through the history of protest and civil disobedience. I could cite numerous examples of actions taken through history by protesters which they knew wouldn't by themselves solve the problem, but which they also knew would shame and pressure those with the power to solve it into actually solving it.

hatrickpatrick

Trasna1 wrote: »

With the advent of rent control, have the not the majority of those evicted not been because the landlord wants to sell? Should people be prevented from selling their property?

Of course not! And if they're selling, the council should be buying them, flattening them, and replacing them with higher density developments more appropriate for the city centre - again, as they did from the 1930s right up to and including the 1980s.

EDIT: I genuinely wonder if some people realise just how common this was. Every single time you drive or walk past one of these buildings in Dublin, you're literally walking past a block of housing where that is exactly what the council did, at some point during the 20th century:

dxhound2005

20Cent wrote: »

Why is it so hard to believe that someone with a privileged upbringing could care about others less privileged?

I find it hard to believe that a private fee paying education results in producing so many Marxist Leninists.

J_E

You're having circular arguments about rent and property prices.

Can we remember that Gardai assisted private thugs that used brute force and peaceful protesters ended up in hospital?

This was entirely avoidable and it's chilling to see a side of the police force that is willing to forego due process and lawfulness.

Wheeliebin30

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course not! And if they're selling, the council should be buying them, flattening them, and replacing them with higher density developments more appropriate for the city centre - again, as they did from the 1930s right up to and including the 1980s.

EDIT: I genuinely wonder if some people realise just how common this was. Every single time you drive or walk past one of these buildings in Dublin, you're literally walking past a block of housing where that is exactly what the council did, at some point during the 20th century:

Have you a costing for this?

hatrickpatrick

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

'Normal' folk on 'normal' wages can't afford to buy or rent a central property in any major city in the world though, the way people are going on you'd swear it was an Irish only problem. It's not, not even close. it is very much the way of the western world - not saying it's 'right' or 'wrong' but it's definitely how it is in many many other places.

Those on housing lists shouldn't really be housed in a 2k/month apartment etc. in the city centre though. Those are for people of large means who can afford it. Equality can't be extended to bank accounts, or else it's just heading towards communism. I am not entirely sure what this squatting exercise wants to achieve beyond the raising of awareness and division of people.

No one's suggesting extending it bank accounts, just to housing itself.