The Frederick St protest and reaction

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If you're talking about investment property, then that is kinda totally at odds with the definition of working class, i.e. one whose income is earned by the sale of labour.

Even casting aside that definition, it's a bit odd to describe the owner of a capital investment worth hundreds of thousands of euro as 'working class'.

Do you think investors are confined to high income earner? Lots of public servants, tradesmen, taxi drivers, bus drivers etc invested in properties. Go over to the accommodation thread and see the number of average income earners who are investment property owners and landlords. I wonder do working class people who own property consider themselves part of the "elite" class.

With the price of property today, lots of working class people who get paid for labour have properties worth hundreds of thousands.

weldoninhio

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

By giving a description of the person's face to Gardaí, just like when any crime is committed... "he has red hair, mid-forties", etc. How is this difficult to understand?

That's not public information though. You can't just google a badge number.

Why would you need to google a badge number?? If the Garda has done something wrong you report their badge number, that allows AGS to identify them.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Why would you need to google a badge number?? If the Garda has done something wrong you report their badge number, that allows AGS to identify them.

Did you follow the flow of conversation?

A poster said that some anonymous source on Facebook had started to identify some of the masked guards and publish their details, including where one ate lunch.

I asked how they identified a balaclava wearing guard, seeing as how they were masked, and another poster said via the numbers.

I don't think theirs a database that connects guards numbers to their real names available to the public, so this understandably is a bit baffling.

More so, as if true, makes the balaclavas redundant anyway, but then again we also have posters in the thread wondering why it matters if a balaclava is worn or not, as seeing someone's face isn't much use to identify them, unless you know them personally anyway (I'm not joking) which once again makes the balaclavas redundant.

Tad confusing and a bit all over the shop.

davo10 wrote: »

Do you think investors are confined to high income earner? Lots of public servants, tradesmen, taxi drivers, bus drivers etc invested in properties. Go over to the accommodation thread and see the number of average income earners who are investment property owners and landlords. I wonder do working class people who own property consider themselves part of the "elite" class.

With the price of property today, lots of working class people who get paid for labour have properties worth hundreds of thousands.

So there is a distinction between a regular sham who bought a single investment property and business owners who own multiple properties and essentially act as slum lords. The people doing the occupations presumably have the intelligence to make this distinction and by all indications appear to only be occupying properties owned by the latter

juno10353

Are sheriff's or registered bailiffs not required by law to perform legal evictions?

Why are our Gardai supporting a group of unregistered bailiffs. Is that not a case of them supporting an illegal eviction?

P_1 wrote: »

So there is a distinction between a regular sham who bought a single investment property and business owners who own multiple properties and essentially act as slum lords. The people doing the occupations presumably have the intelligence to make this distinction and by all indications appear to only be occupying properties owned by the latter

No, actually the muppets confirmed in interviews they did not know the owner of Frederick st property and to my knowledge, there has not been any accusations of them being slum landlords. Are you aware of any?

I think a characteristion of an owner being and ordinary sham or a slum landlords based solely on the number of properties owned is idiotic. Does a properly owner change from a sham to a slum landlord when the second, third, fourth etc properties are bought? Many slum landlords are working class people who have one property and can't afford to renovate properties, many investors offer fantastic properties at market price.

[Deleted User]

davo10 wrote: »

Do you think investors are confined to high income earner? Lots of public servants, tradesmen, taxi drivers, bus drivers etc invested in properties. Go over to the accommodation thread and see the number of average income earners who are investment property owners and landlords. I wonder do working class people who own property consider themselves part of the "elite" class.

I wouldn't call them elite, but whether you are sitting on a vacant property worth €500,000, or you have invested in stocks and bonds to that value, I don't really draw any distinction. Except that the latter is typically a more ethical venture.

I struggle to see the relevance of defining the class of these property owners anyway, except to paint them as 'ordinary decent Joes'. They may be ordinary, they may even be called Joe, but there's nothing decent about speculating in vacant property during a housing crisis.

Most people can't even waste food without feeling guilty about it. Don't you wonder at all how these speculators justify their behaviour to themselves? I certainly do, and if they can't bring themselves to act more responsibly, maybe we need legislation to compel them.

davo10 wrote: »

No, actually the muppets confirmed in interviews they did not know the owner of Frederick st property and to my knowledge, there has not been any accusations of them being slum landlords. Are you aware of any?

I think a characteristion of an owner being and ordinary sham or a slum landlords based solely on the number of properties owned is idiotic. Does a properly owner change from a sham to a slum landlord when the second, third, fourth etc properties are bought? Many slum landlords are working class people who have one property and can't afford to renovate properties, many investors offer fantastic properties at market price.

They change to being a slum landlord when the 4th property is converted to sleep 6 to a room, and then the 3rd and then the 2nd etc.

That's the definition of a slum landlord. A regular sham who can't afford to renovate a place is different. Generally you tend to find they treat their tenants decently

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Footage in the last 15 seconds. No visible numbers on several Gardai. Precautionary on their part. But utterly in contravention of their code of practice.

They all have numbers visible. I presume you are talking about the ones getting into the van.

Turner wrote: »

These sh1tebag "peaceful protestors" are already identifying members of this Garda Public Order unit on social media, even posting where they eat their lunch on their break from work.

What next? Protest outside the homes of the Gardai?

Protest outside where their children go to school?

The government and the new Garda commissioner need to grow a pair and protect our front line services from these parasites.

That's only what they've posted on the public forums. And this is only the start.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Curious as to how they're identifying them, seeing as they were masked?

Because they had their numbers on them.

end of the road wrote: »

it is, but hoodies with no identity being given backing by the gardai is also a main issue.

They are no more required to wear ID than the guys with their faces covered in the protest.

end of the road wrote: »

it would have insured that had the hoodies done anything they shouldn't, they would be identifiable for prosecution. i'm not bothered about the hoodies protection, because as they are there acting in an enforcement capacity, they should be identifiable.

But if the Gardaí already knew who they were they'd be identifiable anyway. a balaclava doesn't conceal your clothes or body shape.

end of the road wrote: »

it would have made a huge difference, because the helmet and balaclava together is apparently the required gear, and by wearing it we could be genuinely confident that they may have felt there was a genuine potential threat.

It wouldn't have made any difference because the crowds react negatively to the helmet too and it conceals the face even more. You're trying to make an issue out of something with no basis. Tell me, why exactly are you upset about the face coverings? Are you upset they looked scary? Are you upset the Gardaí weren't fully protected?

end of the road wrote: »

then the gardai have nothing to worry about. as there is no evidence for the allegations made against them by protesters, then the allegations would be found to be untrue.

False allegations are always something to worry about. They can prevent you receiving a promotion, a transfer or a new position. They can result in criminal investigations. They are extremely stressful and disruptive.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I wouldn't call them elite, but whether you are sitting on a vacant property worth €500,000, or you have invested in stocks and bonds to that value, I don't really draw any distinction. Except that the latter is typically a more ethical venture.

I struggle to see the relevance of defining the class of these property owners anyway, except to paint them as 'ordinary decent Joes'. They may be ordinary, they may even be called Joe, but there's nothing decent about speculating in vacant property during a housing crisis.

Most people can't even waste food without feeling guilty about it. Don't you wonder at all how these speculators justify their behaviour to themselves? I certainly do, and if they can't bring themselves to act more responsibly, maybe we need legislation to compel them.

One of the issues I have with this type of showboating, is that they picked properties which will never be affordable to the people who need them. They are effectively protesting so that rentals will be made available to people who can afford to pay €1500 a month, not for homeless people or people on a housing list.

From a legal standpoint, whether you or the muppets like it or not, the owners of these buildings are doing nothing illegal, you may feel that immoral, but many people think that invading a privately owned house is equal if not worse, because there is a realisation that if the law is not enforced, muppets could take over your house next.

P_1 wrote: »

They change to being a slum landlord when the 4th property is converted to sleep 6 to a room, and then the 3rd and then the 2nd etc.

That's the definition of a slum landlord. A regular sham who can't afford to renovate a place is different. Generally you tend to find they treat their tenants decently

Did the owners of Frederick Street do that?

I agree, owners who do that are slum landlords and should be prosecuted. But I don't see muppets going in and occupying those buildings, why not?

davo10 wrote: »

Did the owners of Frederick Street do that?

I agree, owners who do that are slum landlords and should be prosecuted. But I don't see muppets going in and occupying those buildings, why not?

Wasn't Frederick Street a commercial property?

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Because they had their numbers on them.

How did they gain access to AGS database that connects guards numbers to their real names?

A further question would be, if normal joe soaps can identify them from their numbers (which they must display) what is the point in the balaclavas to begin with?

All I am left to assume is, that if normal Joe Soaps can identify members of AGS from the badge numbers, the balaclavas look to have been worn for no other purpose than to try and make the guards a bit more menacing/send out a certain message.

davo10 wrote: »

Did the owners of Frederick Street do that?

I agree, owners who do that are slum landlords and should be prosecuted. But I don't see muppets going in and occupying those buildings, why not?

Very good point. I know Summerhill was. Now I think of it Frederick Street was an abandoned retail premises with unoccupied flats on top

Guess this ties un with the flawed execution argument

weldoninhio

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Did you follow the flow of conversation?

A poster said that some anonymous source on Facebook had started to identify some of the masked guards and publish their details, including where one ate lunch.

I asked how they identified a balaclava wearing guard, seeing as how they were masked, and another poster said via the numbers.

I don't think theirs a database that connects guards numbers to their real names available to the public, so this understandably is a bit baffling.

More so, as if true, makes the balaclavas redundant anyway, but then again we also have posters in the thread wondering why it matters if a balaclava is worn or not, as seeing someone's face isn't much use to identify them, unless you know them personally anyway (I'm not joking) which once again makes the balaclavas redundant.

Tad confusing and a bit all over the shop.

Wires are being crossed. If someone has an issue with the Gardaí they can report them via bagde numbers.

The scum online putting out info on Gardaí are finding members of the Public order unit and exposing them as so. Not necessarily the ones that were at Frederick St.

P_1 wrote: »

Very good point. I know Summerhill was. Now I think of it Frederick Street was an abandoned retail premises with unoccupied flats on top

Guess this ties un with the flawed execution argument

The protesters need to identify their targets and know their audience. Occupying buildings which have no hope of ever being offered to the disadvantaged and where the LL has no history of abusing tenants garners no sympathy for the cause among the general populace who struggle to pay mortgages or whose family members are looking for affordable accommodation.

On the other hand, shaming slum landlords and occupying state/Nama owned properties and forcing them to be offered to the less fortunate will generate huge support.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

How did they gain access to AGS database that connects guards numbers to their real names?

You don't need access to a database. Plenty of people know Garda numbers and the names to go with them, particularly people who have had previous interactions with them, like the person who shared the personal details and lunch habits of the Garda in question.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

A further question would be, if normal joe soaps can identify them from their numbers (which they must display) what is the point in the balaclavas to begin with?

All I am left to assume is, that if normal Joe Soaps can identify members of AGS from the badge numbers, the balaclavas look to have been worn for no other purpose than to try and make the guards a bit more menacing/send out a certain message.

Or they were being worn for their intended purpose, protection.

[Deleted User]

davo10 wrote: »

One of the issues I have with this type of showboating, is that they picked properties which will never be affordable to the people who need them. They are effectively protesting so that rentals will be made available to people who can afford to pay €1500 a month, not for homeless people or people on a housing list.

There are motivated by the housing crisis in general -- not simply the homelessness aspect, which is nonetheless a major component. In any case, plenty of properties in that area, probably on that street, are made available through HAP.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Wasn't Frederick Street a commercial property?

It may have been, or it may have been mixed. It's not really relevant, the Council is very receptive to changing the use of a property, especially during the current crisis. There's even very generous tax relief for doing so in the area of Dublin under discussion.

weldoninhio wrote: »

The scum online putting out info on Gardare finding members of the Public order unit and exposing them as so. Not necessarily the ones that were at Frederick St.

So, then the argument is flawed to begin with.

They need balaclavas to protect their identities, in case some scumbag puts their details on social media.

Scumbags are putting guards details on social media claiming they were at this particular scene regardless.

If anything, I'm even more convinced that the balaclavas might have been useless overkill in this instance.

Seems like a much deeper and complicated problem than what a balaclava might solve.

In fact, it could be argued that they do more harm than good.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You don't need access to a database. Plenty of people know Garda numbers and the names to go with them, particularly people who have had previous interactions with them, like the person who shared the personal details and lunch habits of the Garda in question.

See my response below. If named wrongly, they might be doing more harm than good.

Or they were being worn for their intended purpose, protection.

Protection from what exactly?

The weather?

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There are motivated by the housing crisis in general -- not simply the homelessness aspect, which is nonetheless a major component. In any case, plenty of properties in that area, probably on that street, are made available through HAP.

It may have been, or it may have been mixed. It's not really relevant, the Council is very receptive to changing the use of a property, especially during the current crisis. There's even very generous tax relief for doing so in the area of Dublin under discussion.

When that building is renovated, do you honestly think it will be priced in the HAP range?

It is very relevant if you are looking for support beyond the socialist/anti austerity/helping homelessness groups. Going into a private property where the owner is not known, has no history of abusing tenants, thumbing your nose at the Courts, then blaming the owner/gardai for evicting college going muppets, isn't the cleverest way of doing it.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

See my response below. If named wrongly, they might be doing more harm than good.

Not really, they'll just be targeting a different victim.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Protection from what exactly?

The weather?

From that crowd? Spit would be my guess. But it protects from other stuff too. Smoke, dust, fire, corrosive liquids. I think this has been explained a few times. But yes, they also provide protection from the weather.

davo10 wrote: »

The protesters need to identify their targets and know their audience. Occupying buildings which have no hope of ever being offered to the disadvantaged and where the LL has no history of abusing tenants garners no sympathy for the cause among the general populace who struggle to pay mortgages or whose family members are looking for affordable accommodation.

On the other hand, shaming slum landlords and occupying state/Nama owned properties and forcing them to be offered to the less fortunate will generate huge support.

In that we are in full agreement. Now getting that message across to the protesters will be another battle. Trying to get people on the extremes of any argument to acknowledge the varying shades of gray is an exercise in frustration

[Deleted User]

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

So, then the argument is flawed to begin with.

They need balaclavas to protect their identities, in case some scumbag puts their details on social media.

Scumbags are putting guards details on social media claiming they were at this particular scene regardless.

If anything, I'm even more convinced that the balaclavas might have been useless overkill in this instance.

Seems like a much deeper and complicated problem than what a balaclava might solve.

In fact, it could be argued that they do more harm than good.

So you have a problem with members of the eru wearing face cover? Because they always do.

Get Real

This issue was about housing. I fully relate to the issues surrounding housing in this country.

But to derail and start talking about balaclavas is ridiculous.

Looking at the posts attached, I can see why you'd think of wearing them.

Ironically, I've protected the privacy of the very people calling on guards to be shot and all types of abuse. Here are two such comments.

Anyone who excuses this behavior is scum in my opinion. Also, these type of comments are justification for balaclava wearing.

People trying to make out like we're living in Spain or Russia. How about balaclavas, and no identity numbers at all? How about a simple whack over the head. Or being turfed out on the first day of entry? Because that's what would happen in other countries.

All we had was a group of guards standing at the bottom of a stairs. For all the videoing and photographing done, there were no scenes of absolute war.

end of the road

the_syco wrote: »

They hide their identities, so that they don't get harassed on the street.

i don't believe so i'm afraid. the balaclava for gardai is not worn to protect identity, at least in these specific cases. a helmet is required to be worn over the balaclava. had they worn the helmet, then it could be reasonably assumed that there was some genuine danger. as it wasn't, then i believe it's reasonable to assume there was no danger. as for the hoodies, they aren't gardai, so should be definitely not be having their faces covered.

the_syco wrote: »

Did the gardai enter the premises where the people were being evicted from?

we have moved on from the gardai, we are now discussing the hoodies.

the_syco wrote: »

The Gardai have numbers on them. Match the number, find the Gardai.

the hoodies had nothing, so unlike the gardai, it would be difficult to trace them.

the_syco wrote: »

You go where you are sent. You may see more Gardai in balaclavas in the future, depending on how these Gardai get harassed.

i'd doubt it, the commissioner has (going on his comments at least) given his verdict on that.

Seth Brundle

davo10 wrote: »

On the other hand, shaming slum landlords and occupying state/Nama owned properties and forcing them to be offered to the less fortunate will generate huge support.

Like Apollo House?
Loads of money raised. Where did it go?

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

Of course a prosecution could be taken.
Injured party make complaint to gardai, Gardai investigate & they identify the offender.
How would seeing someone's face identify them anyway? Unless the injured party actually knew the offender?

Rules should be the same for everyone.

we are assuming the gardai would be able to 100% identify them. the hoodies had no badges or anything else either, assuming they were working for a private security firm or for the sheriff or were private bailiffs which is in my opinion a potential threat to the public.

juno10353 wrote: »

Are sheriff's or registered bailiffs not required by law to perform legal evictions?

it's a good question. i'd assume so.

juno10353 wrote: »

Why are our Gardai supporting a group of unregistered bailiffs.

i don't know. it's very sinister either way.

juno10353 wrote: »

Is that not a case of them supporting an illegal eviction?

no as the eviction is still legal as a court has implemented a court order. it certainly comes across as the gardai supporting sinister dark forces though.