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

Amirani

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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.

Judging by Twitter, maybe they don't.

https://twitter.com/Rubberbandits/status/1039956427526365184

Apparently what you want is less important. Plenty of them very difficult to engage with unless you put their cause above all else in importance, giving out about slowing commuters is being part of the problem...

LuckyLloyd

gandalf wrote: »

Normally I would be against this sort of protest but we live in extraordinary times. For years politicians have been saying that they were going to stop the hoarding of vacant land and property. That has not happened. It's needs to. There should be a policy of use it or lose it. The state needs to build homes again. In this country we have gotten obsessed with investing in property rather than viewing it as a home. There needs to be proper laws protecting long term renters.

Apart from the obvious issues for people who are homeless the property situation at the moment is impacting on the economy. Those who are paying high rent have a reduced or nonexistent disposable income. Foreign companies will avoid the country because they can't guarantee their employees can get a home.

As for the gardai yesterday the optics were dreadful. They protected a bunch of anonymous heavies who were themselves breaking the law with a van that wasn't taxed or ncted and parked illegally. No wonder the lads had balaclavas on, you normally act like that when you're ashamed.

Nail on the head. When you have people with lower expectations than their parents for housing despite earning more supporting such a use of Gardai resource and slamming these protests it shows how successful the divide and conquer narrative is.

ThunbergsAreGo

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.

How did they manage this? Its has taken me 5 hours each time I have gone.

I must take up the old protesting :P

padd b1975

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

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

Once that useless shower have defaulted on our national debt commitments, stolen the Apple money, introduced a wealth tax etc etc there'll be money for everything.

Simple!

padd b1975

naughtb4 wrote: »

How did they manage this? Its has taken me 5 hours each time I have gone.

I must take up the old protesting :P

Squeaky wheel always gets the oil.

The Tetrarch

guylikeme wrote: »

i'd like to hear why Gardai wore Balacalavas. Seems a little overdone.

It keeps their ears warm.

Berserker

naughtb4 wrote: »

How did they manage this? Its has taken me 5 hours each time I have gone.

Boredom kicked in and they went home.

homerjay2005

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????

we dont need 100,000 social houses. 3,000 maximum would solve most of the issue. opening up vacant council houses would solve more and moving people into empty units around the country also would help more.

Wheeliebin30

homerjay2005 wrote: »

we dont need 100,000 social houses. 3,000 maximum would solve most of the issue. opening up vacant council houses would solve more and moving people into empty units around the country also would help more.

3,000????

Where did you get that from.

Interesting

[Deleted User]

gandalf wrote: »

Very simplistic view. An awful lot of people in this country are "married" to onerous mortgages that they can barely afford to service. So a very high proportion are not alright.

Here's something I genuinely don't understand. Irish households are earning more now than we did during the boom; rental and property prices are higher than they were during the boom, and the country is almost at full employment.

So with these combination of factors, even if a person took out a mortgage at the height of the boom, why exactly are they unable to service and repay it? The economic conditions are better now than they were when the mortgage was drawn down.

homerjay2005

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

3,000????

Where did you get that from.

Interesting

current "homeless" figures.

theres 1000s of houses currently planned in the private sector which will cater for everything else.

Trasna1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Here's something I genuinely don't understand. Irish households are earning more now than we did during the boom; rental and property prices are higher than they were during the boom, and the country is almost at full employment.

So with these combination of factors, even if a person took out a mortgage at the height of the boom, why exactly are they unable to service and repay it? The economic conditions are better now than they were when the mortgage was drawn down.

Because lots of people over paid and more importantly over extended themselves. They may have taken mortgages with initial holiday/discount periods at the start or assumed their careers would be further progressed than they are.

In my own field, wage progression now takes twice as long.

Sweet.Science

homerjay2005 wrote: »

we dont need 100,000 social houses. 3,000 maximum would solve most of the issue. opening up vacant council houses would solve more and moving people into empty units around the country also would help more.

The need for social housing is not sustainable. The more that are built the more that will sign on and pursue one and live a certain lifestyle to try get one.

I dont know what the solution is.

yourdeadwright

I think its the timing of the whole thing that has people upset
New Garda commissioner with Mi5 links is only in the door, Then that van last registered to the Manchester police force turns up in Dublin with English reg ,Masked men and not taxed and no insurances, No id (some claim they didn't need them so say they did)
The Garda released in there statement they checked and the Van was taxed , which is a lie you can check online yourself, It hasn;t been taxed since 2014 ,
I'm not saying any of the above is right or wrong but its what has upset some people
Then on top of that the new commissioner made a statement last month that the biggest threat currently to Irish people is " Republican paramilitaries " which raised serious eyebrows , As its clear its the drug gangs and the problems they have been causing are far worse in current times
Its easy to see why the Sinn Fein heads are worried when that came from a former PSI officer's mouth whos father was killed by the IRA, Its very very out of touch of what currently happing and seems obvious he would have problem with Republicans due to his past, who wouldn't to be fair to the man ,
Again i'm not saying i agree or its right , I'm just saying this is why u'll see a lot of people on Facebook and what not giving out,

Amirani

homerjay2005 wrote: »

current "homeless" figures.

theres 1000s of houses currently planned in the private sector which will cater for everything else.

If the state announces a plan that they're going to start giving social housing to all the homeless, then anyone who is living at home and wants to move out,is living in substandard accommodation or accommodation they can't afford will suddenly just declare themselves homeless overnight. You'd be crazy not to if you're automatically going to be housed.

[Deleted User]

homerjay2005 wrote: »

.......... moving people into empty units around the country also would help more.

Many folk won't and don't want to be moved to places around the country.

[Deleted User]

Sweet.Science wrote: »

The need for social housing is not sustainable. The more that are built the more that will sign on and pursue one and live a certain lifestyle to try get one.

I was a child in the 1990s, and I grew up in a small, thriving town with no poverty-related social problems. Yet half the kids in my primary school class lived in houses that were (or had been) local authority houses.

Go back another generation, to our parents' generations, and that figure is probably even higher, especially in urban centres. In fact, plenty of the one-off bungalows you see dotted around the countryside were built using local authority mortgages, not privately.

This moral panic that 'if the Government build social housing, the people will turn into a nation of shirkers' is entirely vacuous. Almost every household in the country gets some kind of welfare transfer as things are, and productivity is at an all-time high.

Relax lads. If anything is 'new', it's the idea that local authorities shouldn't build social housing. That's the great experiment here, and it isn't working.

yourdeadwright

See its the timing and the use of english reg , People already of Harris's back

[Deleted User]

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

....... Almost every household in the country gets some kind of welfare transfer as things are, and productivity is at an all-time high............

You must be including children's allowance or mortgage interest relief etc in that?

[Deleted User]

Augeo wrote: »

You must be including children's allowance or mortgage interest relief etc in that?

Of course; and medical cards, and pensions, and jobseekers' payments.

Why? Because there's this notion that only a minority are availing of welfare transfers, and that such transfers are somehow dangerous to the industriousness of the society. Which as we can see if we look around us, or look at the literature on universal basic incomes, is BS.

Amirani

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I was a child in the 1990s, and I grew up in a small, thriving town with no poverty-related social problems. Yet half the kids in my primary school class lived in houses that were (or had been) local authority houses.

I grew up in Cabra/Finglas in social housing areas and it was pretty awful, lots of poverty and very rough in parts. Lots of drugs and quite unsafe a lot of the time.

That said, I am supportive of the state providing social housing. But I'm massively against the model of putting a large volume of social houses in the same spot, or having 100% social housing developments. We need mixed accommodation.

Sweet.Science

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I was a child in the 1990s, and I grew up in a small, thriving town with no poverty-related social problems. Yet half the kids in my primary school class lived in houses that were (or had been) local authority houses.

Go back another generation, to our parents' generations, and that figure is probably even higher, especially in urban centres. In fact, plenty of the one-off bungalows you see dotted around the countryside were built using local authority mortgages, not privately.

This moral panic that 'if the Government build social housing, the people will turn into a nation of shirkers' is entirely vacuous. Almost every household in the country gets some kind of welfare transfer as things are, and productivity is at an all-time high.

Relax lads. If anything is 'new', it's the idea that local authorities shouldn't build social housing. That's the great experiment here, and it isn't working.

Thats not the point i was making.

The point was if we get our country to an unsustainable amount of debt to build social housing to rid us of the crisis we will be in the same position in 10-15 years time with a waiting list as high

In order to do it low income earner will have to be taxed at 40% . State pensions cut . Everything will have to be cut .

There would really be no point in working.

The need for social housing would be out of control

Deebles McBeebles

Its unsustainable anyway, we can't keep up with population growth, and not just in Ireland. There are housing issues all over the world.

hatrickpatrick

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

Housing is unequal by nature though.

For instance - I have to commute from the sticks because I can't afford Dublin rent. It's my tough shít and I can accept that. If i was on 150k i could afford to live in gc dock or somewhere, but i'm not - so i can't!

If you want to accept that, that's your business. Some of us haven't bought into the relatively recent political ideology that people should just accept that.

I don't deny theres a housing problem here, but siezing peoples assets & demanding free accommodation in the most expensive part of the country is not the way to solve it.

It was how we solved it before. Nobody so far has managed to give credible reasons as to why we couldn't do so again.

[Deleted User]

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course; and medical cards, and pensions, and jobseekers' payments.

Why? Because there's this notion that only a minority are availing of welfare transfers, and that such transfers are somehow dangerous to the industriousness of the society. Which as we can see if we look around us, or look at the literature on universal basic incomes, is BS.

I'd not class children's allowance or the contributory pension with jobseekers and HAP etc.

There's clearly a difference, anyone with kids gets children's allowance, anyone who contributed enough gets the contributory pension.

If loads and loads more was in receipt of medical cards, non contributory pensions and jobseekers' payments etc the country would be bust.

[Deleted User]

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Thats not the point i was making.

The point was if we get our country to an unsustainable amount of debt to build social housing to rid us of the crisis we will be in the same position in 10-15 years time with a waiting list as high

In order to do it low income earner will have to be taxed at 40% . State pensions cut . Everything will have to be cut .

I'm not talking about a house-building programme comparable in volume to that of the 1930's.

I'm just talking about a semi-decent programme where the Local Authorities just up their game. Dublin City Council built just under 200 units last year, for their entire area. Relatively small adjustments to the tax code, such as a restoration of the VAT rate for cafes and restaurants, could probably see that kind of number doubled.

Amirani

Sinn Fein celebrating 500 new homes being cancelled: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/plan-to-build-more-than-500-homes-near-dublin-s-st-anne-s-park-rejected-1.3627993

'The scheme was proposed under “fast-track” planning legislation, allowing applications to proceed directly to the Bord without local authority involvement. Thursday’s decision is the first time this process has been successfully challenged in the courts.

“We are absolutely ecstatic about it, all the residents. Hopefully it’s the end of it,” local Sinn Féin Cllr Ciaran Moore said of the decision.'

10000maniacs

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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.

Seriously? The next time you go on holiday how would you like a posse of squatters living in your house when you return "peacefully" (passively aggressively) refusing to leave?

Thatnastyboy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If you want to accept that, that's your business. Some of us haven't bought into the relatively recent political ideology that people should just accept that.

It was how we solved it before. Nobody so far has managed to give credible reasons as to why we couldn't do so again.

So your solution is to give me and every other citizen a free house? How in the hell does that work? What pays for it?

It didnt solve anything, it created some absolute hell hole no-go areas around the country with generational poverty & crime.

Hence spending 25 odd million trying to "regenerate" dolphins barn..

It failed, and failed miserably.

It didn't work for the soviets, and it won't work here, comrade.

[Deleted User]

Amirani wrote: »

“We are absolutely ecstatic about it, all the residents. Hopefully it’s the end of it,” local Sinn Féin Cllr Ciaran Moore said of the decision.'

Weren't local representatives from every political party opposed to that development? I know that I've heard Labour and FG councillors on the radio, speaking in opposition to it.