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

Berserker

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Didn't all the arrestees go to hospital after release? What a waste of hospital resources.

Yep they rocked up to A&E and were discharged a few hours later. Wasn't much wrong with them if they managed to get in and out of A&E that quickly.

gandalf wrote: »

At the end of the day it's your own responsibility if you take on a loan of any type. However I'm just countering the narrative that people who own a home all are living on easy Street.

Agree with you. They are one economic downturn away from being in negative equity up to their eyeballs in truth.

dav3 wrote: »

We'll get 10% "affordable" houses out of it at least. Keep the recovery going.

€300K is affordable these days. Not sure how that adds up when you look at what people are earning.

seamus wrote: »

This takes time. Lots of it. No amount of protesting can change that fact.

It would certainly be of immense help if DCC got their sh1t together and starting allowing buildings bigger than 5 storeys in the city centre.

Much like health, I think the housing crisis is a ten year project. Why are they refusing to build up, as a matter of interest?

McMurphy

the_syco wrote: »

Dublin says no to houses to be built near them. Anywhere in Dublin will have NIMBYism.

Indeed.

Criticism as Leo Varadkar opposes four-storey development in his constituency

Samsong

Who owns the building anyway? Or is it not known

seamus

the_syco wrote: »

And the place near MountJoy Square actually just recently got planning permission to be turned into 4 apartments, from 10 illegal bedsits (they were refused permission to build 9 small apartments). But nope, they'll squat it to prevent the apartments being built, so that they can protest about the lack of apartments being built.

I can guarantee you if the suggestion was that the place be knocked and turned into a 20 storey block of apartments, they'd complain that private developers and property companies will be renting it out and not the government giving it to needy families.

They can't see the wood for the trees.

[Deleted User]

zapitastas wrote: »

Now it turns out that the tax for the van ran out in July 2014 and didn't have a mot either. The thing should have been impounded

Do you think AGS should spend their time enforcing English Road Traffic laws?

Gimme A Pound

What are the middle-class folk here, giving out about fg for being middle-class, doing to help the homeless/poor?

Oh yeah sneering on the internet.

gandalf

bubblypop wrote: »

Do you think AGS should spend their time enforcing English Road Traffic laws?

No but they should be enforcing our laws. Try driving a vehicle around town with no tax, insurance or nct disks visible and missing a reg plate and tell us how you get on?

Samsong

We need a yearly purge event. If any of you have seen the movie

Trasna1

Berserker wrote: »

Yep they rocked up to A&E and were discharged a few hours later. Wasn't much wrong with them if they managed to get in and out of A&E that quickly.

Agree with you. They are one economic downturn away from being in negative equity up to their eyeballs in truth.

€300K is affordable these days. Not sure how that adds up when you look at what people are earning.

Much like health, I think the housing crisis is a ten year project. Why are they refusing to build up, as a matter of interest?

The refusal to build up is to protect what remains of the Georgian skyline in the historic city core. Personally I think this is a rather weak reason since 1. Dublin is not an attractive city architecturally, 2. The city must function for the people that live in it now, not those that lives there 150 years ago.

That said, if there was an easy fix to this problem, or it was simply a case of throwing money at it, that would have been done long ago. It would be an easy win politically. The reason why government hasn't taken upon itself to construct thousands of social and affordable homes is for the following reasons:

The capacity does not exist in the Irish construction industry. So import labour you say
The industry cannot import labour as this would increase cost. Let people borrow more you say
Overall cost is constrained by the availability of credit - make credit more available you say
If credit flows again, it will be like setting a fire under house prices and unbalance and overheat the economy.

The other big big reason is the government cannot interfere to a major extent in the market. A public development agency cannot put houses on the market at below cost as this is illegal state aid.

Wheeliebin30

Can anyone give me a costing for these social houses?

I constantly ask this and no one can answer here.

Let’s say 250,000 each.

100,000 houses is 25 billion euro.

Do people think we have that money????

zapitastas

bubblypop wrote: »

Do you think AGS should spend their time enforcing English Road Traffic laws?

They should be enforcing our own. They should be ensuring that vehicles that require it have a certificate of roadworthiness. You can't dive any clapped out piece of junk around because it us registered someplace else . Especially if you are driving around with balaclavas on. Whatever company it is must be pretty shady. You would imagine they could at least have their van meeting the miminum requirements and not show up like that.

McMurphy

bubblypop wrote: »

Do you think AGS should spend their time enforcing English Road Traffic laws?

Obviously not, but I'm wondering how.I'd fare out if I got a few buddy's of mine to balaclava up, hop in a van which has its front UK registered plate missing and drive it through the city.

There'd be uproar here if a group of nomadic people, who often drive UK registered vans were doing it, that's for sure.

Regardless of the protesters, the optics weren't good.

Thatnastyboy

zapitastas wrote: »

They should be enforcing our own. They should be ensuring that vehicles that require it have a certificate of roadworthiness. You can't dive any clapped out piece of junk around because it us registered someplace else . Especially if you are driving around with balaclavas on. Whatever company it is must be pretty shady. You would imagine they could at least have their van meeting the miminum requirements and not show up like that.

You can't go breaking into peoples privately owned buildings and tresspassing in them either though, and then refusing to comply with a court order when you're told to move on. where's all the what-abouts about that?

This is like brexit - the protesters want change - but they can't say what it is because even they don't know how to solve it. Because it's immensly complicated.

You can't just up and build a mass of high density social housing - because in 10 years its a fcukin ghetto. We've moved past that disastrous carry on because it's knee-jerk and doesn't work!

I'm not against fixing this but there's no visible solution, but firing public money at it without a real solution & punishing the middle class even further with higher taxation will not fix this - it will make it fecking worse!

padd b1975

gandalf wrote: »

I see these protests as a symptom of the shambolic way we build and rent homes in this country. As I said earlier our politicians have paid lip service to dealing with horded vacant property and sites but have done nothing. If there was a sustained effort to build affordable housing by the state it would have a relieving knock on effect for the private housing and rental markets in readjustment of the prices. This needs to happen, ordinary families are being priced out of the buying and rental markets across the country.

We need to stop viewing property as an investment and view it as a home again.

Hand over your own property to some moocher if you feel so passionately about it!

padd b1975

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Obviously not, but I'm wondering how.I'd fare out if I got a few buddy's of mine to balaclava up, hop in a van which has its front UK registered plate missing and drive it through the city.

There'd be uproar here if a group of nomadic people, who often drive UK registered vans were doing it, that's for sure.

Regardless of the protesters, the optics weren't good.

Jonathan, you're getting far too worked up about the bloody van.

seamus

padd b1975 wrote: »

Hand over your own property to some moocher if you feel so passionately about it!

He's living in it. That would make no sense, trading one homeless family for another.

People should not be allowed hoard property. Simple as.

If you're in an RPZ with a vacant property, you should be paying a penalty for that vacancy.

Amirani

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Can anyone give me a costing for these social houses?

I constantly ask this and no one can answer here.

Let’s say 250,000 each.

100,000 houses is 25 billion euro.

Do people think we have that money????

I'm not sure that factors in the acquisition of land in order to build them. So on State-owned land it may be 250k, but may be different if purchases are needed.

We clearly don't have anywhere near 25 billion euro. That would be our total infrastructure budget for half a decade.

padd b1975

the_syco wrote: »

And the place near MountJoy Square actually just recently got planning permission to be turned into 4 apartments, from 10 illegal bedsits (they were refused permission to build 9 small apartments). But nope, they'll squat it to prevent the apartments being built, so that they can protest about the lack of apartments being built.

They'll be out screaming about gentrification in a few weeks...

Gatling

zapitastas wrote: »

Now it turns out that the tax for the van ran out in July 2014 and didn't have a mot either. The thing should have been impounded

What's an mot and it wasn't taxed in the UK mainland

seamus

To be fair, 100,000 houses would be a decade worth of social/public housing. It's still 2.5 billion a year that we realistically don't have.

We shouldn't be building massive amounts of state housing. State housing should only be necessary for a tiny proportion of the population who can't buy or rent under their own steam. You're talking 2-3%, maximum.

Affordable housing sounds like a cop-out, the state pushing the obligation onto private enterprise, but why shouldn't it? We should be aiming for a place where most people pay for their own home, not where most people rent from the state.

LuckyLloyd

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Delighted. I'm confident that the many public transport users who face the brutal increases in rents and witness the incredible explosion of homelessness in our country will recognise the importance of this action and support it.

Of course there will also be people who feel like they've been murdered because there journey home took a while longer.

Occupy vacant houses lying idle for profit in the midst of a housing crisis? While done peacefully and respectfully (i.e. not ruining the interior of the property or violently resisting, etc) I'm behind you.

The sit down stuff on O'Connell street doesn't help your cause however. It fuels the divide and conquer narrative the media successfully peddle to the sheep and is so frequently expressed here on boards. It's just not good strategy. This happened a couple of times during the water protests. The protests would successfully march and rally through town, then a rump end of extremists blocked O'Connell bridge. I support the former I don't support the latter. And you want my support.

McMurphy

padd b1975 wrote: »

Jonathan, you're getting far too worked up about the bloody van.

Not worked up, just curious as to which laws our national police force may or may not turn a blind eye to - that's all.

No one seems to want to answer the question either.

padd b1975

seamus wrote: »

He's living in it. That would make no sense, trading one homeless family for another.

People should not be allowed hoard property. Simple as.

If you're in an RPZ with a vacant property, you should be paying a penalty for that vacancy.

I was being facetious, but I think you knew that.

I wouldn't rush to judge anyone who leaves a property unattended, particularly for a period of just three years.

Old/listed buildings can't just be renovated straight away, there can be mountains of red tape to get through depending on what the owner wants to do with the property.
In this case, it seems they were ready to go with turning it into much needed accommodation before the crusties decided to play silly beggars.

LuckyLloyd

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

It’s their PRIVATE property they can do as they please with it.

**** me whats next I don’t use my car for a few days should I give it to some homeless person??

Keep repeating this. It sounds good but it's a mantra that is being outflanked. Short term lets are in the cross hairs. Vacancy will be next. The situation is untenable and action will be taken.

Thatnastyboy

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Not worked up, just curious as to which laws our national police force may or may not turn a blind eye to - that's all.

No one seems to want to answer the question either.

Possible (probable) explanation:

The public order unit is not generally tasked with road policing duties, so they likely don't care. likewise when you encounter a detective - they rarely give a fiddlers fcuk about tax / roadworthiness cerification either.

padd b1975

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Not worked up, just curious as to which laws our national police force may or may not turn a blind eye to - that's all.

No one seems to want to answer the question either.

I would suggest that the Gardai made a conscious decision about priorities at that present moment and decided the most effective use of the manpower available was to ensure the safety of both sides during the enforcement of the court order.

arleitiss

What are the chances that public order unit will be brought out? Does it only happen when it escalates into violent protest or also when it's affecting current state of city? (Blocking roads, access etc...) ?

DwightSchrute1

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Not worked up, just curious as to which laws our national police force may or may not turn a blind eye to - that's all.

No one seems to want to answer the question either.

Isn’t it possible that one of the Guards spoke to the owner of the van and issued him a ticket?

Nekarsulm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Obviously not, but I'm wondering how.I'd fare out if I got a few buddy's of mine to balaclava up, hop in a van which has its front UK registered plate missing and drive it through the city.

There'd be uproar here if a group of nomadic people, who often drive UK registered vans were doing it, that's for sure.

Regardless of the protesters, the optics weren't good.

In reality, visiting UK (or Spanish or German or whatever) vehicles are not checked for tax in this country.
Why would the Gardai care if the German government wasn't paid ?

As long as the driver has a licence and insurance thats all they are bothered about.
An RSA check will look for test cert. and be a different kettle of fish.

Back in the UK you wouldnt last a day without being picked up on a NPRS, either on a squad car or fixed camera.

Wheeliebin30

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, 100,000 houses would be a decade worth of social/public housing. It's still 2.5 billion a year that we realistically don't have.

We shouldn't be building massive amounts of state housing. State housing should only be necessary for a tiny proportion of the population who can't buy or rent under their own steam. You're talking 2-3%, maximum.

Affordable housing sounds like a cop-out, the state pushing the obligation onto private enterprise, but why shouldn't it? We should be aiming for a place where most people pay for their own home, not where most people rent from the state.

Can someone please tell these morons and Ruth and her cronies we simply don’t have that money???????