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

BBFAN

Graces7 wrote: »

This resulted in the measure, originally based on lacking one or more items from an 8-item index, changing to one based on lacking two or more items from the following 11-item index:

1. Two pairs of strong shoes
2. A warm waterproof overcoat
3. Buy new not second-hand clothes
4. Eat meals with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day
5. Have a roast joint or its equivalent once a week
6. Had to go without heating during the last year through lack of money
7. Keep the home adequately warm
8. Buy presents for family or friends at least once a year
9. Replace any worn out furniture
10. Have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month
11. Have a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight, for entertainment

Three indicators are used to measure poverty in Ireland

And they are a travesti; an upper middle class list. I would fit in with maybe 2 of these but I do not count myself as living in poverty. Very far from it. I would not like to live as they suggest. Out for entertainment? shoes? I have crocs, wellies and one pair.

And those are your choices Grace, doesn't mean everyone else is the same.

blanch152

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

A family member is an accidental landlord, not selling yet (despite their best attempts) because of a few reasons -

Their mortgage provider overcharged interest to them and many others which became a legal issue, because of this legal issue these people were not allowed bring their property to the market.

The property they currently own but have rented out brings in rent of 900/month,

The mortgage on the property is 1100/month + maintenance and usual landlord obligations.

The property is worth 60% of the original purchase price so to sell it creates a negative equity of i think about €100k,

They are renting in another property at the cost of 1000/month (they're 'lucky' at that)

Despite these outgoings they must save 20% of the new mortgage value (as they are not first time buyers) to purchase a new property, this property must be cheap enough to carry the negative equity from the other house within the 3.5x max mortgage allowance so they are heavily limited in how much they can borrow for the new property.

When they gave 6 month notice to their tenants the tenants notified them that they were unlikely to move because of high rents elsewhere and have contacted threshold about staying put.

These family members have been trapped for a decade now.

They handout a ball of money every month - while trying to pay their dues on all sides.

But according to you they're on the pigs back. They ain't.

Even if the property has lost 40% of its value in 10 years (the top of the market was 10 years ago, if they bought before or since that, there is no way the property is still carrying that amount of loss) - they must be very unlucky if that remains the case - they shouldn't be in negative equity to the tune of €100k, unless the property cost over €1m or they took out an interest-only mortgage.

[Deleted User]

Arghus wrote: »

Yes, I think the majority opinion on here is that the people involved are c*nuts. But, in fairness, isn't that always the way for After Hours about every political debate: everyone is always a c*nt according to this place. I more or less know what I'm going to read in every hot-topic thread, even before I click into it. Even your use of the tired "students in Mao jackets" and the "martyr crew" tropes is indicative to me that that you're coming at from an entrenched attitude. I know there's nothing I'm going to say here that'll change your mind.

Of course housing has been a political issue for years, but it gets bigger and bigger all the time and I think the government have largely sat in their hands about it for years. Fine Gael have been in Power for seven years and I never got the sense that they were actually serious about doing something until maybe 18 months ago. Feel free to disagree, but I think they were happy enough to keep the issue at relative arms length for a long time. Housing was not as hot a topic politically at the time of the last election, it was there alright, but it'll be a major talking point next time round.

If you don't agree with protests and occupations - and I'm not saying I think they are the be-all and end-all - how do you think people should register their dissatisfaction with the current reality of housing in this country? There is the ballot box of course, but that may only come your way once in several years. Just knuckle down and grumble ineffectually, that old Irish way?

It's not just the so called "work-shy masses" and self appointed martyrs who are feeling the squeeze. Housing is becoming a major issue for all kinds of people. I'm a working male in my early thirties and a lot of my peers are just like me: working hard to make ends meet, with spiralling rent costs and a dwindling supply of available properties. The protests and the occupations are just symptomatic of this aspect of Irish life. But, as usual round here, people refuse to see the woods from the trees - preferring instead to go for the surface level - and rather childlike, I may add - analysis of just calling them "c*nts". Maybe they are c*nts and maybe in some ways their methods are indeed c*ntish, but that doesn't mean that, at some fundamental level, those c*nuts don't have a point.

look its true i do overuse the seaward a bit but i think the main point stands

we all agree theres a problem

we dont all agree on how to solve it

we all agree that there are groups of self-interested people making it a lot worse than it needs to be

we dont all agree on which groups these are.

id maintain for both sensible large-scale behavioural reinforcement reasons and the good of yknow the economy we all rely on that the people paying their own way as best they can deserve a lot more consideration in terms of who the government looks after first than those not doing so. basing it on need alone serves nobody, there has to be an element of contribution and this has to be seen to be the case.

but in any case the working, rent-paying, tax-paying commuting proles dont deserve the contempt shown them by those in this thread defending protestors who imo achieve nothing but love the ego boost and drama.

that was the context for my mao-jacket sling, not at yourself at all but at the three or four red legends who are well-known for the vituperativeness and emptiness of their rhetoric in these thread to be fair.

[Deleted User]

BBFAN wrote: »

I can't be bothered going all the way back through the thread Maryanne but proof was provided earlier from an article in which the journalist had checked the tax status of the van from the reg number and gotten the information.

I never said absence of a disc was a problem.

I’ve been on this thread from the start and no one has provided a shred of proof that the vehicle is or isn’t compliant with the rules.

The focusing on the vehicle and hoods worn by both baliffs and Gardai is just a distraction. Fact is that squatters were evicted legally and without force. Some protesters expressed their displeasure by attacking the Gardai, leading to some of them being either charged or cautioned.

PlaneSpeeking

BBFAN wrote: »

If you don't crack 2 or 3 on that list you need to look at your life. :rolleyes: Give it up ffs.

Really ? Not that you deserve an explanation but education should always be encouraged for the hard of thinking:

1. Two pairs of strong shoes
Nope - one pair of Penney's runners.

2. A warm waterproof overcoat
Mac style coat - barely waterproof but got a hat and an umbrella

3. Buy new not second-hand clothes
This I've done - via QVC and "EasyPay" but not often

4. Eat meals with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day
Done this but not every second day - weekends when I have time.

5. Have a roast joint or its equivalent once a week
Live on my own, why bother ?

6. Had to go without heating during the last year through lack of money
Sort of - oil was stolen from tank outside and had to wait two weeks to get more.

7. Keep the home adequately warm
Have to budget the oil yeah, not always warm in the kitchen or bedroom.

8. Buy presents for family or friends at least once a year
This I do

9. Replace any worn out furniture
God no, who can afford that ?

10. Have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month
11. Have a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight, for entertainment
Neither - trips to UK for football is my "treat".

So you might want to wind your neck in and as painful as it may be, realise you DO NOT know everyone's life.

PlaneSpeeking

BBFAN wrote: »

And those are your choices Grace, doesn't mean everyone else is the same.

Take your own advice there eh ?

Thatnastyboy

blanch152 wrote: »

Even if the property has lost 40% of its value in 10 years (the top of the market was 10 years ago, if they bought before or since that, there is no way the property is still carrying that amount of loss) - they must be very unlucky if that remains the case - they shouldn't be in negative equity to the tune of €100k, unless the property cost over €1m or they took out an interest-only mortgage.

They bought at the very top of values.

Bought for about 300k, property next door currently for sale today for 210k,

90k negative if you look at purchase price only. As for interest, I'm not privvy to the actual figures at the moment..

I think the bolded bit is true, but it's reality - and I'm sure they don't enjoy being told how privileged they are for being landlords...

[Deleted User]

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

They bought at the very top of values.

Bought for about 300k, property next door currently for sale today for 210k,

I assume this is not in one of the cities, which is what i referred to?

I also know plenty of people who were in negative equity a few years ago; not any more, certainly not in Dublin.

Property values are higher than they were during the last boom.

Also, I didn't say anyone is on the pig's back; I simply pointed out that there is now a realistic opportunity to get out of the market. most people are getting their money back, many of them are making a profit.

dav3

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Really ? Not that you deserve an explanation but education should always be encouraged for the hand of thinking:

I agree, education should always be encouraged for the hand of thinking.

blanch152

It is a very sad day for Ireland when an ordinary Garda feels the need to cover their face because of the probability that some lowlifes will be targetting him in his personal life and intimidating his family.

If there are law changes required in this area, they must be made a priority.

ohnonotgmail

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Using unknown anonymous masked men to enforce a court order is quite clearly the bigger p picture.

If this is what the future holds, we should all be worried imo, it's clearly not a welcoming development if this is how we're going to proceed as a functioning democracy.

**and I have zero problem with the protesters removal, just who did the removing, and under who's orders**

the removal was done under the order of the court. why is that an issue for you?

Thatnastyboy

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I assume this is not in one of the cities, which is what i referred to?

I also know plenty of people who were in negative equity a few years ago; not any more, certainly not in Dublin.

Property values are higher than they were during the last boom.

Also, I didn't say anyone is on the pig's back; I simply pointed out that there is now a realistic opportunity to get out of the market. most people are getting their money back, many of them are making a profit.

They're in the country though, so affected by the same crisis the cities are feeling. So move the goalposts to Dublin if you like. and ignore the folk down the country - who commute to dublin to work... Fcuk em basically.

Most/many/some isn't reality, as we are so comprehensively told when someone mentions that some people on SW / in social housing are taking the piss..

One rule for one set of people, one rule for the other.

blanch152

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

They bought at the very top of values.

Bought for about 300k, property next door currently for sale today for 210k,

90k negative if you look at purchase price only. As for interest, I'm not privvy to the actual figures at the moment..

I think the bolded bit is true, but it's reality - and I'm sure they don't enjoy being told how privileged they are for being landlords...

It still doesn't make sense.

https://www.drcalculator.com/mortgage/

A 90% 35-year mortgage at 4%, gives a monthly payment of €1,100.

After ten years, the outstanding balance is 219k, meaning they are only in negative equity of 10k. Not great but not insurmountable.

A more normal 25-year 90% mortgage, on a tracker rate of 2%, would leave the outstanding balance at 175k, a positive equity situation of 35k, enough for a deposit on another property.

[Deleted User]

topper75 wrote: »

In a country where it is absolutely legal to wear a burka style headdress, there can be no way in which you can question the executive force of the law wearing balaclavas.

Not for the Gardai. They’re prohibited from wearing burkas or any form of religious paraphernalia. The use of balaclavas in this instance is not justifiable, particularly if they’ve no recognisable unique identification in the event of violent clashes. Officers need to be identifiable in the event of use of excess force.

Captain Obvious

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not for the Gardai. They’re prohibited from wearing burkas or any form of religious paraphernalia. The use of balaclavas in this instance is not justifiable, particularly if they’ve no recognisable unique identification in the event of violent clashes. Officers need to be identifiable in the event of use of excess force.

That's why they wore their numbers on their shoulders.

PlaneSpeeking

dav3 wrote: »

I agree, education should always be encouraged for the hand of thinking.

And especially those who cannot distinguish between a typographical error when typing quickly and not actually knowing what word to use.

Go find your own argument eh ?

Thatnastyboy

blanch152 wrote: »

It still doesn't make sense.

https://www.drcalculator.com/mortgage/

A 90% 35-year mortgage at 4%, gives a monthly payment of €1,100.

After ten years, the outstanding balance is 219k, meaning they are only in negative equity of 10k. Not great but not insurmountable.

A more normal 25-year 90% mortgage, on a tracker rate of 2%, would leave the outstanding balance at 175k, a positive equity situation of 35k, enough for a deposit on another property.

I will get the figures later because I cant place my point without them.

Your top assumption is 100% not the case here. Otherwise they wouldnt be in the pickle they are in.

BBFAN

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Really ? Not that you deserve an explanation but education should always be encouraged for the hard of thinking:

So you might want to wind your neck in and as painful as it may be, realise you DO NOT know everyone's life.

You have one pair of pennys runners to your name?

Yeah, you mind want to wind your own neck in there and get down off the cross. :rolleyes:

Can not stand martyrs.

That's either a lie or you're just cheap. Either way, nothing to do with poverty.

I presume you're a working person since you rant all the time about the "spongers"?

McMurphy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the removal was done under the order of the court. why is that an issue for you?

It's not, and I don't know how you missed me saying that either.

[Deleted User]

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

They're in the country though, so affected by the same crisis the cities are feeling. So move the goalposts to Dublin if you like.

I'm not moving the goalposts, maybe you didn't notice that i specifically referenced the urban areas of the country from the outset.

I'm originally from the countryside myself, I know very well that property prices haven't recovered there (although 'recovery' seems the wrong word to use, for prices that were wildly inflated to begin with).

In any event, rural property isn't really relevant to the housing and homelessness crisis.

dav3

The main issue is the behaviour of the Gardaí and the perception that they were there siding with unidentified masked men, rather than carrying out the job they are paid to do following the three simple Policing Principles that state that policing services must be provided:
1) Independent and impartially.
2) In a manner that respects human rights.
3) In a manner that supports the proper and effective administration of justice.

This has led to all sorts of accusations, including the rumour that the masked men were known to the Gardaí. Rumours that they were a criminal gang from the UK, or a criminal gang from Ireland, or a paramilitary gang from the north, or even Gardaí themselves looking for a bit of extra money on the side and not wanting to be identified.

With so many Gardaí getting into property and becoming landlords during the boom, you can understand why people may be concerned over the possibility of them taking the side of the landlord and whatever masked goons turn up at the next protest.

The housing crisis is not going away, it appears that the protests are only just beginning. Hopefully the Gardaí have their house in order by the next event.

Will I Am Not

dav3 wrote: »

The main issue is the behaviour of the Gardaí and the perception that they were there siding with unidentified masked men, rather than carrying out the job they are paid to do following the three simple Policing Principles that state that policing services must be provided:
1) Independent and impartially.
2) In a manner that respects human rights.
3) In a manner that supports the proper and effective administration of justice.

This has led to all sorts of accusations, including the rumour that the masked men were known to the Gardaí. Rumours that they were a criminal gang from the UK, or a criminal gang from Ireland, or a paramilitary gang from the north, or even Gardaí themselves looking for a bit of extra money on the side and not wanting to be identified.

With so many Gardaí getting into property and becoming landlords during the boom, you can understand why people may be concerned over the possibility of them taking the side of the landlord and whatever masked goons turn up at the next protest.

The housing crisis is not going away, it appears that the protests are only just beginning. Hopefully the Gardaí have their house in order by the next event.

Do you have a number for that?

[Deleted User]

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Do you have a number for that?

In fairness, it's a fairly common experience, i think it has something to do with the early retirement age of Gardaí, who in recent years have often tended to become landlords as part of their pension plan/ part-time job in retirement.

I rented in Dublin before i bought my place, and over the course of about seven years, two of my landlords were retired gardaí. It's only anecdotal, I'm not sure who would possibly gather data on this.

ohnonotgmail

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It's not, and I don't know how you missed me saying that either.

Now maybe i read your post incorrectly, in which case i apologise, but to me this reads like you DO have a problem with who did the removing and unders whos orders it was done.

**and I have zero problem with the protesters removal, just who did the removing, and under who's orders**

Thatnastyboy

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not moving the goalposts, maybe you didn't notice that i specifically referenced the urban areas of the country from the outset.

I'm originally from the countryside myself, I know very well that property prices haven't recovered there (although 'recovery' seems the wrong word to use, for prices that were wildly inflated to begin with).

In any event, rural property isn't really relevant to the housing and homelessness crisis.

What about the folk who currently cant afford to buy/rent rural properties? Do they not matter?

*Edit - 1000th post, what a waste

Will I Am Not

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

In fairness, it's a fairly common experience, i think it has something to do with the early retirement age of Gardaí, who in recent years have often tended to become landlords as part of their pension plan/ part-time job in retirement.

I rented in Dublin before i bought my place, and over the course of about seven years, two of my landlords were retired gardaí. It's only anecdotal, I'm not sure who would possibly gather data on this.

Never knew it was a thing at all. Sure I thought they were on terrible wages...

Amirani

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Property values are higher than they were during the last boom.

Nope, they're not. If you're basing you're entire argument on this then it's definitely flawed. There will definitely still be people in negative equity in Dublin as house prices have not yet reached their previous peak, they remain a good bit below.

Rent prices have exceeded previous peak.

McMurphy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Now maybe i read your post incorrectly, in which case i apologise, but to me this reads like you DO have a problem with who did the removing and unders whos orders it was done.

How can I simplify my stance any further for you, help me out here....

Stick with me.

There was a high court order instructing the people who illegally remained in a property which didn't belong to them. - fine, that's what happens when you take something that does not belong to you. Still with me?

I do however think it's a worrying development when our police force rock up in conjunction with hooded men, who as yet, no one knows what (if any) security firm they were from, who instructed them to enforce the order, and why they had no identifiable features t distinuish them whatsoever.

In Britain, bailiffs and highcourt enforcement officers are clearly identifiable, in fact even identify themselves by name and with badges informing them why they're there, who sent them, and what firm employs them, even leaving their telephone numbers (from what I have witnessed)

In Ireland, lads who look like they might be about to read some kind of statement from a paramilitary organisation rock up to their job, Gardai in toe, and no one seems to know who sent them, where they came from, and who to get in contact with should the whole thing go tits up, ie an injured party on either side?

Don't you see the stark contrast with the transparency and professionalism of how it might go in England in comparison with the cloak and dagger skullduggery that took place here?

Is Ireland so much more of a dangerous place to carry out court orders than the UK that the people doing so here, must do so under such a veil of secrecy? Are the highcourt enforcers here a bunch of snowflakes compared to the British ones, or was their identity shrouded in secrecy for some other reason?

It appeared, and was fairly sinister.

TLDR? I have zero problems with high court orders being enforced, so long as they are done in a transparent and less sinister manner.

Graces7

BBFAN wrote: »

And those are your choices Grace, doesn't mean everyone else is the same.

Choices? Ah no ... necessity... I live within a small pension and am all but housebound through disabling illness. But I do not count myself as poor .

Poor is what I almost was last year ie without a roof over my head etc. Poor is living rough. or in a hostel.

I hate that they assess people like me as "poor" and use that to inflate the figures as they do.

ProfessorPlum

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

It needs to stay on the news because most voters arent renting.

Thats why you see politicians celebrating the fact yesterday that 500 gaffs on the northside of Dublin got denied planning.

Those 500 gaffs were going to be built on land that is part of st Anne’s Park - land that was all but given to the priests who own St. Paul’s college - they paid £1 to the council for the lands - and it was given to them to be used as playing fields for the kids. Up until this year that’s what they were used for - school playing fields, and outside of school hours they were fully utilised by local gaa, soccer and rugby clubs. The local clubs invested heavily in those pitches to get them upto standard, and then had them pretty much sold from under them making the priests a tidy profit on lands that morally they had no right to sell. IMO.
And then there’s the Brent geese. Thank god for those lads.

So if you think it’s wrong to deny development in st Anne’s, I’m going to assume the rest of Dublin’s Parks are up for grabs - Phoenix Park, Marley, st Stephens green? It’s not like there aren’t other spaces that could be developed without affecting the public amenities that imo should be protected.