end of the road wrote: » but that seems impossible as we are being told they had their faces covered to protect their identity. so if that is the case, they wouldn't be identified because they have their faces covered. if they are being identified dispite the face covering, then the covering of their faces is redundant. a badge number would only identify a garda to other gardai, as if there is a database with the list of gardai and their badge numbers, it's not publically accessible. so, if members of the public order unit who were at this eviction are being identified as claimed, then the only way i can see this being possible is down to someone accessing non-public information and leaking it, which is very serious business if that is indeed the case. then as said they would be wearing the helmet as apparently mandated with the face covering. they aren't being put at risk. other private security are required to be identifiable in some form. if we are going to have private security carying out evictions, then they should absolutely be identifiable in some form, via a badge etc. if they don't want to take the risk of being identified, don't do the job. either way, there should not be in any circumstances, completely unidentifiable, hooded men operating in our country in a law enforcement capacity. protesters are members of the public, so them covering their faces is not the same as either a member of gardai, or a member of a defacto law enforcement doing the same, when unnecessary.
end of the road wrote: » 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. it's a good question. i'd assume so. i don't know. it's very sinister either way. 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.
bubblypop wrote: » They always attend evictions, merely to maintain the public peace.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » 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.
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » Eh? No, they do not! Most evictions are perfectly peaceful affairs, even when the occupier is overholding.
homerjay2005 wrote: » if anything, its a positive sign for the future of the country that law enforcement is finally taking control of situations where people are breaking the law. im baffled how anybody has a problem with this - a court order was issued, it was carried out, its over. we move on.
tayto lover wrote: » What was the purpose of the protest anyway as it seems to have got lost in here? Surely it can have little to do with homelessness as the Dail or Council offices would have been more appropriate places for it.
bubblypop wrote: » Ridiculous. Gardai are not there supporting anyone. They always attend evictions, merely to maintain the public peace. There were only a few Gardai there to begin with, like every eviction. Only when things were getting out of hand, were the public order involved. Nothing sinister & they would not have been there if it was straightforward.
bubblypop wrote: » So you have a problem with members of the eru wearing face cover? Because they always do.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » No, no problem with them wearing them, in fact I actually posted that very opinion fairly early on in the thread. What I do have a problem with, are the folk who seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths depending on how the wind is blowing. "The masks are needed because someone might put their details on social media/their details were put on social media anyway because their numbers were visible" which in either scenario makes the balaclavas pointless Then there are the others who can't understand what difference the balaclavas make, as sure unless people personally recognised them, they're unrecognizable anyway. Which also makes them pointless. No one has a problem that the guards might want anyone to recognise them (embarrassment maybe), it's the dissident Republican/Loyalist looking thugs they're supporting that's the worrying development. Anyway, the head of the policing authority has said they will be taking it up with the commissioner (who thinks protocol was broke) and Leo apparently is wading in too. What is it with AGS that they keep making haimes of things?
bubblypop wrote: » Not there supporting anyone except the peace. That's their job, no matter how often you say it, doesn't make it true. Pity the new commissioner is as spineless as all the others & afraid to back up his men instead of licking government butt.
bubblypop wrote: » Not there supporting anyone except the peace. That's their job, no matter how often you say it, doesn't make it true.
Pity the new commissioner is as spineless as all the others & afraid to back up his men instead of licking government butt.
end of the road wrote: » he sinister nature of hoodies being at an eviction along with the gardai,
homerjay2005 wrote: » hoodies are sinister now when worn by law enforcers? ive heard it all now .. care to tell us why people who were abused, (1 racially), physically assaulted and everything else, should have to show their faces? so that social media keyboard warriors can plaster their faces all over the internet?
homerjay2005 wrote: » and this was not an eviction, this was a removal of people who were in somewhere they shouldnt have been.
end of the road wrote: » not at all bubblypop, he is backing up his men and isn't spineless. i don't trust him personally but i agree with his comments in relation to this issue. rules are rules and if the commissioner decides that certain protacall hasn't been followed then it hasn't been followed. following protacall is non-negotiable IMO.
end of the road wrote: » is there video or any other evidence of this racial abuse and asalt?
end of the road wrote: » semantics. removal, eviction, both are suitable terms as they involve people being removed from a property.
[Deleted User] wrote: » end of the thread folks
guylikeme wrote: » I declare not! Reflecting on this incident, i think we can all at least agree that building high rise will fix alot of the issues. Yes there will still be those on both sides with extreme views(the left looking for houses for all, the right saying fk them geta job etc). However, at least it may allow people a realistic chance to live in the city and build a life.
Seth Brundle wrote: » Building upwards won't necessarily make cheaper homes but will allow people to live near places if work which reduces commuting times and therefore improve quality of life, air, etc. However it won't remove the selfish sense of entitlement held by so many out there!
homerjay2005 wrote: » lets just say as an example, it was somebody elderly in your family that owned a large house somewhere in Dublin, been in the family for 5 or 6 generations. last few years, they were in nursing home, but every few months came out to spend sometime in the house - otherwise it was unused. one weekend, a group of people break into the house and occupy it illegally. your family cannot get them to leave. you've tried mediation - they wont leave. you've got the guards around - they wont leave. you go to court - they still wont leave, so you get a court order to evict them - they still dont leave. would you be so sympathetic then and dismiss the actions as "people being removed from a property"? its amazing how people seem to be more upset about a few lads wearing head gear (and that allegedly some van had no tax on it) than condemn the fact that people broke the law.
20Cent wrote: » Your imaginary scenario that didn't happen isn't much use to the discussion is it.
homerjay2005 wrote: » lets just say as an example, it was somebody elderly in your family that owned a large house somewhere in Dublin, been in the family for 5 or 6 generations.
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » Why though? The owner of the house on Frederick Street is an accountant who lives in Dublin 4, not some doddery old dear who comes out of the County Home once in a blue moon to reminisce about the tenements. The owner of the house on Summerhill Parade is a well-known slum landlord, who had previously been piling 6-8 tenants to individual rooms in that property, before those tenants were evicted, allegedly illegally.
davo10 wrote: » What has his profession got to do with anything? He is a citizen of the state not breaking any law? Is there any evidence he is a slum landlord?
The house in Summerhill is empty, the protesters called for compulsory purchase by the state, so the protesters want us the taxpayers to buy properties costing hundreds of thousands just because they are empty? Where is that money going to come from?
What happened to the 20 Brazilians staying in Summerhill, did the protesters house them?
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » She. It's relevant in that your analogy to some old dear who's just a bit fond of her property is redundant here. The same place all compulsory purchase of land comes from, the Central Fund. How on earth could the activists have housed 20 students? I assume they are not slum landlords. Anyway, there were over 100 people evicted in total from the five neighbouring properties owned by the O'Donnells. but who cares, right? Something, something entitlement.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e0a528cbc0a6c66fda22b51f3da0d9d1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
