The Frederick St protest and reaction

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 04:01PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Awkward. All the cop fetishists and landlord boot-lickers who defended the use of balaclavas will now have to find a way of agreeing with Drew Harris OBE that the Gardai shouldn't have worn balaclavas, whilst somehow insisting that their previous incorrect assertions were equally correct. Nightmare.

His issue is that they were not wearing helmets with the balaclavas, not with the wearing of balaclavas. Of course if they had worn helmets as well you would be giving out about that as well. Given some of the rabid dogs these protests attract i cant blame them for wearing balaclavas.

13-09-2018 04:01PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Awkward. All the cop fetishists and landlord boot-lickers who defended the use of balaclavas will now have to find a way of agreeing with Drew Harris OBE that the Gardai shouldn't have worn balaclavas, whilst somehow insisting that their previous incorrect assertions were equally correct. Nightmare.

Even Leo said he didn't like to see masked security, but sure what would a crusty like him know, he should go out and get a real job

weldoninhio · 13-09-2018 04:01PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Awkward. All the cop fetishists and landlord boot-lickers who defended the use of balaclavas will now have to find a way of agreeing with Drew Harris OBE that the Gardai shouldn't have worn balaclavas, whilst somehow insisting that their previous incorrect assertions were equally correct. Nightmare.

He never said that, he said that if they were wearing them, they should have been wearing their helmets too.

"if it deemed necessary to use the hood then it should be used in tandem with a protective helmet."

13-09-2018 04:01PM

blackwhite wrote: »

Trying to extrapolate that into some blood-lust fetish says a hell of a lot more about you than anything else. But I guess it's easier for you to make stuff ...

I'm not making it up.

There is no shortage of odd characters on this thread who seem to have a hard-on for policemen wielding truncheons.

Mongfinder General wrote: »

They need to smash fcuk out of any junkie/scumbag/burglar/pikey type who steps out of line.
Long overdue.

cursai wrote: »

I hope the poor Gardai on duty are wearing gloves when they scrape their heads off the pavement.

Edgware wrote: »

Well you can't blame People getting aroused at the thought of a truncheon bouncing off Rich Boy Barrett head.

Deleted User wrote: »

oh for a govt that would baton these jobless wonders off the road

Dravokivich · 13-09-2018 04:02PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Awkward. All the cop fetishists and landlord boot-lickers who defended the use of balaclavas will now have to find a way of agreeing with Drew Harris OBE that the Gardai shouldn't have worn balaclavas, whilst somehow insisting that their previous incorrect assertions were equally correct. Nightmare.

The article never says that. It says they shouldn't have worn it without a helmet.

"However, the form of dress used at the event was not correct as it is policy that if it deemed necessary to use the hood then it should be used in tandem with a protective helmet. A directive has issued today from Deputy Commissioner, Policing & Security, to re-enforce this requirement to all personnel."

blackwhite · 13-09-2018 04:08PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not making it up.

There is no shortage of odd characters on this thread who seem to have a hard-on for policemen wielding truncheons.

You quite deliberately descended to the personal slur to imply I was someone calling for violence - and don't even have the decency to apologise for it. Not sure why I was expecting any common decency TBH - giving you've spend the better part of 2 days on this thread defending people who assault and racially abuse gardaí.

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-09-2018 04:09PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

His issue is that they were not wearing helmets with the balaclavas, not with the wearing of balaclavas. Of course if they had worn helmets as well you would be giving out about that as well. Given some of the rabid dogs these protests attract i cant blame them for wearing balaclavas.

weldoninhio wrote: »

He never said that, he said that if they were wearing them, they should have been wearing their helmets too.

"if it deemed necessary to use the hood then it should be used in tandem with a protective helmet."

Dravokivich wrote: »

The article never says that. It says they shouldn't have worn it without a helmet.

Jesus, what is this? The Garda press office?

I bet you all cried when The Bill was axed.

blackwhite · 13-09-2018 04:09PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Jesus, what is this? The Garda press office?

I bet you all cried when The Bill was axed.

If that the best response you can come up with when called out for posting lies I guess it'll have to do :pac:

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 04:11PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Jesus, what is this? The Garda press office?

I bet you all cried when The Bill was axed.

You misquoted what was said and were corrected. Live with it. And the Bill was never the same after Reg Hollis left.

Dravokivich · 13-09-2018 04:12PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Jesus, what is this? The Garda press office?

I bet you all cried when The Bill was axed.

Was more into Ballykissangel myself.

blanch152 · 13-09-2018 04:12PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not making it up.

There is no shortage of odd characters on this thread who seem to have a hard-on for policemen wielding truncheons.

Seems there is also no shortage of odd characters on this thread who seem to have a hard-on for physical and verbal abuse including racial abuse.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0913/993548-north-frederick-street/

I suppose a non-Caucasian garda is fair game for de lads in de protest.

"Drew Harris said in a statement this afternoon that the officers showed restraint in the face of physical and verbal abuse from a small minority and condemned what he described as the racist abuse suffered by one garda working at the event."

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-09-2018 04:16PM

blackwhite wrote: »

If that the best response you can come up with when called out for posting lies I guess it'll have to do :pac:

"if it [is] deemed necessary to use the hood then it should be used in tandem with a protective helmet."

If procedure dictates the wearing of a balaclava only under a helmet (which makes sense because without the helmet, which has a visor that covers the eyes, the fire-protective balaclava is largely useless), were your heroes not breaking the rules?

Gimme A Pound · 13-09-2018 04:16PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You misquoted what was said and were corrected. Live with it.

Reminds me of a middle-class teenager pretending to be "ghetto" and spray painting "fuk da law" on a wall.

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 04:18PM

Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »

Reminds me of a middle-class teenager pretending to be "ghetto" and spray painting "fuk da law" on a wall.

In my day it was A.C.A.B. I dont think i've seen that in years.

13-09-2018 04:19PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

"if it [is] deemed necessary to use the hood then it should be used in tandem with a protective helmet."

If procedure dictates the wearing of a balaclava only under a helmet (which makes sense because without the helmet, which has a visor that covers the eyes, the fire-protective balaclava is largely useless), were your heroes not breaking the rules?

Was just thinking this myself, the point of the 'fire retardant hood' is not to obscure identity but for personal protection, which was not deemed necessary in this case since they didn't done the helmets

Will I Am Not · 13-09-2018 04:21PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Jesus, what is this? The Garda press office?

I bet you all cried when The Bill was axed.

Embarrassing

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-09-2018 04:26PM

riffmongous wrote: »

Was just thinking this myself, the point of the 'fire retardant hood' is not to obscure identity but for personal protection, which was not deemed necessary in this case since they didn't done the helmets

If they were genuinely concerned that a peaceful protester might lob a petrol bomb at them, you'd think they might have considered protecting their eyes.

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 04:29PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

If they were genuinely concerned that a peaceful protester might lob a petrol bomb at them, you'd think they might have considered protecting their eyes.

they were probably more concerned that the delightful people who were physically and verbally abusing (and racially abusing one of them) would make them a target for further abuse down the line. and i cant say i blame them.

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-09-2018 04:31PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they were probably more concerned that the delightful people who were physically and verbally abusing (and racially abusing one of them) would make them a target for further abuse down the line. and i cant say i blame them.

That's not what their fire-resistant clothing is for. I thought you guys cared about The Rules.

13-09-2018 04:31PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they were probably more concerned that the delightful people who were physically and verbally abusing (and racially abusing one of them) would make them a target for further abuse down the line. and i cant say i blame them.

What was the racist abuse?

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 04:34PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What was the racist abuse?

No idea what was said. It was mentioned in the article that has been quoted over the last page or two.

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 04:35PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

That's not what their fire-resistant clothing is for. I thought you guys cared about The Rules.

As should everyone. they should have put their helmets on as well. Really give you something to moan about.

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-09-2018 04:39PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

As should everyone. they should have put their helmets on as well. Really give you something to moan about.

Had they arrived wearing helmets, I'm sure we can all agree that they would have been overdressed for the occasion, but at least there would have been some logic to it.

13-09-2018 04:40PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No idea what was said. It was mentioned in the article that has been quoted over the last page or two.

If a protestor claimed on this occasion that a Garda had racially abused them, would you believe it and repeat it as fact?

13-09-2018 04:40PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Well to allow an non Taxed one be involved when the Garda there with all the speculation about the new commissioner is very unprofessional , Many many Irish citizen have had cars impounded for such an offence,

Tax disks were abolished in Uk in 2014. Insurance disks were never used.

yourdeadwright · 13-09-2018 04:43PM

Deleted User wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Well to allow an non Taxed one be involved when the Garda there with all the speculation about the new commissioner is very unprofessional , Many many Irish citizen have had cars impounded for such an offence,

Tax disks were abolished in Uk in 2014. Insurance disks were never used.

So whats your point ?
The vehicle was not Tax'd , a quick check on line anyone can do will give you the answer , Takes about 30 seconds depending on your coverage

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 04:45PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If a protestor claimed on this occasion that a Garda had racially abused them, would you believe it and repeat it as fact?

so your immediate reaction is to dismiss the claim of racial abuse?

DEFTLEFTHAND · 13-09-2018 04:45PM

These types are very active on social media. Of course the guards had to protect their identity.

Would anyone here want to have their families targeted by this mob?

Odhinn · 13-09-2018 04:46PM

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Ridiculous exaggeration.

It's an accurate description of events.

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 04:46PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Had they arrived wearing helmets, I'm sure we can all agree that they would have been overdressed for the occasion, but at least there would have been some logic to it.

I cant.

The Frederick St protest and reaction

Comments