The Frederick St protest and reaction

hatrickpatrick · 16-09-2018 01:02PM

seamus wrote: »

How much do you think it costs to throw up a box with 3 rooms, brick walls, no insulation, electricity, toilets or running water? **** all.

You would rather live on the street than accept something built to 1930s standards.

Speak for yourself. I'm pretty sure most people who are currently sleeping in doorways on Grafton Street at night would much rather be sleeping under a roof and four walls. As for the no electricity, toilets or running water comment, that's total bullsh!t. Council housing had and currently has all of these things. You are aware that the vast majority of houses in Crumlin and Drimnagh were built directly for Dublin Corporation by Crampton, right? Are you suggesting that houses in Crumlin have no plumbing or running water? Have you ever been inside one?

Your hyperbolic comments are absolutely ridiculous. We built social housing in the past and we don't build it now, because our political establishment has become ideologically opposed to it. That's the only reason.

hatrickpatrick · 16-09-2018 01:03PM

Hurrache wrote: »

Take Frederick House for example. If that was renovated to current standards and rented out, how many people do you think would afford to rent or buy such a place? It's not going to do anything for those on housing lists.

But what if it was demolished and replaced with a four or five storey apartment building?

hatrickpatrick · 16-09-2018 01:15PM

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

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?

No, it isn't. It's to provide publicly subsidised basic housing for anyone who needs it, with luxury housing being an optional and expensive upgrade. Same as education, same as healthcare, etc. Why is it ok for the taxpayer to pay for those things, and not for public housing as well? Or are you suggesting that we also abolish public healthcare and public education?

Please tell me specifically why housing, which is every bit as much a "need" as healthcare and education, should be treated different to those other two services when it comes to public funding. Nobody has so far managed to justify making a distinction between the two.

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

So Stephen's Green is a hell hole no-go area? Bishop Street is a hell hole no-go area? Drimnagh is a hell hole no-go area? Pearse Street is a hell hole no-go area?

The failures you describe happened when we shipped people out of the city and into concentrated ghettoes. The social housing which is integrated into the city rather than being crammed together with nothing else, has not been a failure. If it had, we'd be demolshing the Cuffe Street and Mercer Street flats and replacing them with private accommodation which nobody other than Google employees could afford, but we're not. And have you ever felt unsafe while walking past either of these developments either during the day or at night, while walking from Stephen's Green to Camden Street? You'd be more likely to be accosted by some drunken douchebag on their way home from Coppers than one of the residents of Cuffe St or Mercer St. And that's one example.

Ironically, this "move everyone other than the highest paid individuals out of the city and into the suburbs" attitude on display in this thread is what creates and created hell hole no go areas in the past. So maybe let's build social housing in urban areas where it belongs, and not repeat the mistakes we made before?

I've been suggesting mixed-use developments this whole time, not just developments where the people with the most social problems are crammed together. In fact, if you read my posts, I've been talking about the need to expand the definition of social housing well beyond this.

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

Dolphin's Barn is not being regenerated because of social problems, it's being regenerated because the buildings are falling apart. Dolphin House and Teresa's Gardens are among the developments which were built by Simms in the final years of his career when his budget had been obliterated but the number of units demanded by the council had not. So obviously the quality suffered. That's why Seagull House across the road from Dolphin House is not being renovated, and that's why the much older Oliver Bond doesn't need to be renovated either.

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

Is there a law similar to Godwin's Law for those who suggest that providing publicly subsidised essential services is akin to communism? Christ almighty.

hatrickpatrick · 16-09-2018 01:17PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

All of it.

So please explain how. Do you think women would have got the vote if they'd simply asked nicely for it? :rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick · 16-09-2018 01:19PM

Amirani wrote: »

Who decides who gets those homes?

Why does someone on a council housing list deserve to live here more than a nurse working nearby in the Mater hospital who earns slightly too much to be eligible for social housing?

I've been talking this entire time about expanding the definition of social housing.

You're not getting my argument. I'm not suggesting building publicly subsidised housing for a small subset of the population, I'm suggesting building broad public housing so that accommodation isn't a bidding war. It's not just about housing those who can't afford anything, it's also about bringing down prices across the board so that average peoples' rents are far lower than they are currently.

Brendan Bendar · 16-09-2018 01:22PM

Hmmm... I dectect a drift from the core topic under discussion.

Anyway ..while I’m here...as the Guardian might say, whilst looking for funds,
I am encouraged by Drew Harris’s initial tenure as Commissioner, handled the ‘balaclava’ debate well, and seems to have done the right thing trying out the nults who use social media to by initiating criminal investigation.

The NFL have a grading system for draft picks.

I’d give the lad B+

Brendan Bendar · 16-09-2018 01:23PM

Jeez... who lifted that slate!!

hatrickpatrick · 16-09-2018 01:25PM

Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »

Yeah you're definitely deliberately misinterpreting me to be provocative. You couldnt be stupid enough to be genuine. You talk a lot of naively idealistic babble for sure (young and middle-class i have no doubt - i was the same meself) but you are not stupid. So I must politely ask you to stop trolling.

FFS indeed. I didn't say or even imply that the situation today is less legitimate than the one in the 1800s. Not the slightest hint like.

I said: tenants being evicted in the 1800s. Illegal occupiers who broke into someone else's private property being removed. Not. The. Same. Thing. Therefore a meme depicting them as comparable is a load of sh1t. It is a blatant false equivalence.

Ok, we were at cross purposes here. You were referring specifically to the eviction of the protesters on Frederick St, I was referring broadly to the current issue of sky-high rents and people being evicted if they can't pay for them, and asking why it was legitimate for people to demand government intervention to limit evictions and rent increases back in the 1800s, but not today, when we have a similar problem.

I wasn't comparing the eviction of the Frederick St protesters to the evictions of the 1800s, I was comparing the general situation of landlords charging extortionate rents and evicting people who can't pay them, to the same general situation of the 1800s - back then, people protested for and eventually got government intervention to stop this from happening. What I'm asking is, why was this ok back then but not today?

There is a serious accommodation crisis though - people who say there isn't, are talking out their holes, and while i despise the far left, the freeloaders etc who pretend they are the vulnerable (hilarious), decent hard-working people who are paying their way through life and not feeling entitled to anything are being affected by the accommodation crisis. It has reached appalling levels.

I don't agree with the method of protest though, which is just being self entitled dicks, in a nutshell. But I have absolutely no issue with protesting. A massive rally at the Dail on a Saturday would be a decent approach - then the majority of people will be able to attend because of not having to go to that thing called "work". AND it won't impede people trying to get home from an eight-hours+ day to enjoy their small bit of free/family time in the evenings. Or maybe they are doing a night course or are part of a local sports team - not that the professional doleys would give a ****. Shur they're just "the bourgeoisie" (worse than Hitler according to some). AND it wouldn't be breaking the law.

A massive rally outside the Dail would achieve absolutely nothing without extra pressure being applied, but I totally agree we need a rally. What are we protesting for, though? Do you agree with the principles of demanding Fair Rent and Fixity of Tenure, just like the Land League of the late 1800s did?

Lastly, when I was commenting here a few days ago I wasn't aware that the protesters had done an Eirigí on this and blocked city centre traffic on O'Connell bridge for several hours, which I'm sure is what you're referring to here.

Let me just say this as clearly as possible: I 100% do not, and never will, support protesting measures which deliberately inconvenience innocent people that have no connection to this. It's bullsh!t, it's unfair, it's totally counter productive in the resentment and message it generates from people who might otherwise become supporters, and on top of all that it's just an absolute dick move.

As far as I'm concerned, that does not and never will constitute a legitimate form of peaceful protest. Targeting random folks who have no connection to those exacerbating the housing crisis is moronic, and the statements justifying this are equally moronic. I have no problem condemning this kind of militancy and I never will have.

hatrickpatrick · 16-09-2018 01:28PM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

In an ideal world everything would be free.

Is there s country in the world where this exists?

Unfortunately things have to be paid for.

You haven't answered my question. And I never claimed that everything should be free.

Can you actually answer my question? Do you approve of the fact that we have public healthcare and public education, or not? Should the paradigm be "pay for your cancer treatment or die of it", or "pay for your child's education or do it yourself at home to the best of your ability?"

Assuming you do in fact agree with the provision of publicly funded healthcare and education, which most people in Ireland (even those to the right of centre) do - explain specifically why housing, which is also a basic need, shouldn't be bracketed into the same category, of things which should be provided publicly at affordable levels rather than left to the mercy of the private markets.

What makes it different to education or healthcare? Be specific.

P_1 · 16-09-2018 01:30PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No, it isn't. It's to provide publicly subsidised basic housing for anyone who needs it, with luxury housing being an optional and expensive upgrade. Same as education, same as healthcare, etc. Why is it ok for the taxpayer to pay for those things, and not for public housing as well? Or are you suggesting that we also abolish public healthcare and public education?

Please tell me specifically why housing, which is every bit as much a "need" as healthcare and education, should be treated different to those other two services when it comes to public funding. Nobody has so far managed to justify making a distinction between the two.

So Stephen's Green is a hell hole no-go area? Bishop Street is a hell hole no-go area? Drimnagh is a hell hole no-go area? Pearse Street is a hell hole no-go area?

The failures you describe happened when we shipped people out of the city and into concentrated ghettoes. The social housing which is integrated into the city rather than being crammed together with nothing else, has not been a failure. If it had, we'd be demolshing the Cuffe Street and Mercer Street flats and replacing them with private accommodation which nobody other than Google employees could afford, but we're not. And have you ever felt unsafe while walking past either of these developments either during the day or at night, while walking from Stephen's Green to Camden Street? You'd be more likely to be accosted by some drunken douchebag on their way home from Coppers than one of the residents of Cuffe St or Mercer St. And that's one example.

Ironically, this "move everyone other than the highest paid individuals out of the city and into the suburbs" attitude on display in this thread is what creates and created hell hole no go areas in the past. So maybe let's build social housing in urban areas where it belongs, and not repeat the mistakes we made before?

I've been suggesting mixed-use developments this whole time, not just developments where the people with the most social problems are crammed together. In fact, if you read my posts, I've been talking about the need to expand the definition of social housing well beyond this.

Dolphin's Barn is not being regenerated because of social problems, it's being regenerated because the buildings are falling apart. Dolphin House and Teresa's Gardens are among the developments which were built by Simms in the final years of his career when his budget had been obliterated but the number of units demanded by the council had not. So obviously the quality suffered. That's why Seagull House across the road from Dolphin House is not being renovated, and that's why the much older Oliver Bond doesn't need to be renovated either.

Is there a law similar to Godwin's Law for those who suggest that providing publicly subsidised essential services is akin to communism? Christ almighty.

Ok I'd agree with that to an extent.

If you're working and paying into the system but are earning below a certain threshold then yes you deserve a subsidised home in the city.

If you're not contributing to society then sorry pal feck off into the arsehoole of nowhere

hatrickpatrick · 16-09-2018 01:33PM

P_1 wrote: »

Ok I'd agree with that to an extent.

If you're working and paying into the system but are earning below a certain threshold then yes you deserve a subsidised home in the city.

If you're not contributing to society then sorry pal feck off into the arsehoole of nowhere

So you do in fact agree with the idea that the free market shouldn't dictate everything when it comes to housing. But there are people here who genuinely do believe that it should be a merciless profit-centered thing, and they're refusing to answer the comparison with healthcare and education - I believe because they realise that the argument for property as an asset falls apart when you compare it to either of these other categories.

P_1 · 16-09-2018 01:37PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you do in fact agree with the idea that the free market shouldn't dictate everything when it comes to housing. But there are people here who genuinely do believe that it should be a merciless profit-centered thing, and they're refusing to answer the comparison with healthcare and education - I believe because they realise that the argument for property as an asset falls apart when you compare it to either of these other categories.

I agree completely however I do get annoyed when I see people who dont contribute get looked after ahead of those who do.

It's a bloody grey area and I'm sick to death of people viewing it in black and white terms

blanch152 · 16-09-2018 01:52PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Speak for yourself. I'm pretty sure most people who are currently sleeping in doorways on Grafton Street at night would much rather be sleeping under a roof and four walls. As for the no electricity, toilets or running water comment, that's total bullsh!t. Council housing had and currently has all of these things. You are aware that the vast majority of houses in Crumlin and Drimnagh were built directly for Dublin Corporation by Crampton, right? Are you suggesting that houses in Crumlin have no plumbing or running water? Have you ever been inside one?

Your hyperbolic comments are absolutely ridiculous. We built social housing in the past and we don't build it now, because our political establishment has become ideologically opposed to it. That's the only reason.

Some (but not all) of those people who are currently sleeping in doorways on Grafton Street at night did have a roof and four walls to sleep under. Their own behaviour brought them to where they are.

There was one well-documented case of someone who ended up on the streets despite inheriting two houses. Simplistic statements like yours don't help.

Captain Obvious · 16-09-2018 02:13PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No, it isn't. It's to provide publicly subsidised basic housing for anyone who needs it, with luxury housing being an optional and expensive upgrade. Same as education, same as healthcare, etc. Why is it ok for the taxpayer to pay for those things, and not for public housing as well? Or are you suggesting that we also abolish public healthcare and public education?

Please tell me specifically why housing, which is every bit as much a "need" as healthcare and education, should be treated different to those other two services when it comes to public funding. Nobody has so far managed to justify making a distinction between the two.

Depends on wether you are talking about renting public housing or handing it over.

davo10 · 16-09-2018 02:47PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The water protests worked, they were fairly successful imo - they forced FGs hand in suspending them, the rest is history.
.

The protest against water charges gained traction because water charges effected everyone. But even with that, many were repulsed at the site of Paul Murphy and the protestors trapping two women in a car.

These protests are having the opposite effect on the public, many people are either uningaged because it has nothing to do with them and does not effect them in an way, or they are actually appalled by the site of students occupying a private property owned by someone who has no history of ever doing anything wrong.

The protesters would do well to remember that Ireland has one of the highest percentage of property ownership in the world. We have a long history of defending our land and property from invaders, both colonial and domestic. Irish people do not like their land/property being "invaded" by banks, the State (CPO's) nor soppy haired students.

The protesters misjudged public sentiment on this, if it hadn't been for the balaclavas, this story would have been dead on the day it happened.

Brendan Bendar · 16-09-2018 03:01PM

davo10 wrote: »

The protest against water charges gained traction because water charges effected everyone. But even with that, many were repulsed at the site of Paul Murphy and the protestors trapping two women in a car.

These protests are having the opposite effect on the public, many people are either uningaged because it has nothing to do with them and does not effect them in an way, or they are actually appalled by the site of students occupying a private property owned by someone who has no history of ever doing anything wrong.

The protesters would do well to remember that Ireland has one of the highest percentage of property ownership in the world. We have a long history of defending our land and property from invaders, both colonial and domestic. Irish people do not like their land/property being "invaded" by banks, the State (CPO's) nor soppy haired students.

The protesters misjudged public sentiment on this, if it hadn't been for the balaclavas, this story would have been dead on the day it happened.

Correct, the water charges failed because the public didn’t understand that the income base needed to be broadened.

That you can’t expect the same people to to pay for everything.

The set up was disasterous, the lead in was disasterous.

Very poor understanding of public opinion by FG.

Loves_lorries · 16-09-2018 03:29PM

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Correct, the water charges failed because the public didn’t understand that the income base needed to be broadened.

That you can’t expect the same people to to pay for everything.

The set up was disasterous, the lead in was disasterous.

Very poor understanding of public opinion by FG.

Unless you are unemployed, being opposed to water charges made no rational sense, working tax payers will now have to cough up more.

davo10 · 16-09-2018 03:33PM

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Correct, the water charges failed because the public didn’t understand that the income base needed to be broadened.

That you can’t expect the same people to to pay for everything.

The set up was disasterous, the lead in was disasterous.

Very poor understanding of public opinion by FG.

True, a prime example of an organisational and PR disaster. The point the Government failed to get across is that the water system is crumbling after nearly 100 years of use, yet now there is no money to fix it. But, the PR by the protesters was good (the trapping of the two women aside).

These take back the city protesters have said absolutely nothing which is going to arouse public sympathy for their cause. In fact, to many they got what they deserved when removed from the property.

If they want public support, they have to arouse sympathy for their cause/plight. Having soppy haired students with designer stubble, no housing the homeless element to their protest is just about the worst PR you could have.

Have you ever met any land owner who was ever happy with a CPO to build a new road, widen a road or put in a foot path? I certainly haven't, CPOs are detested because the state is effectively taking your land without your agreement, usually at a reduced price. Yet here we have these protesters arguing that the state should take private property off a citizen with a CPO, how do you expect to get public support for that? If anything the populace will say, what right does anyone have to compulsorily buy that house just because a couple of students occupied it?

PR disaster.

Graces7 · 16-09-2018 03:39PM

P_1 wrote: »

Ok I'd agree with that to an extent.

If you're working and paying into the system but are earning below a certain threshold then yes you deserve a subsidised home in the city.

If you're not contributing to society then sorry pal feck off into the arsehoole of nowhere

Why please does this emotive word, "deserve" keep being used?

Housing, shelter , is a basic need and nothing to do with deserving.

And the equally emotive "contributing to society".

That has nothing to do with "deserving" either.

hatrickpatrick · 16-09-2018 03:44PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Some (but not all) of those people who are currently sleeping in doorways on Grafton Street at night did have a roof and four walls to sleep under. Their own behaviour brought them to where they are.

The whole concept of a 'minimum' standard of living is that you don't fall below it regardless of behaviour - and if the behaviour involved is criminal in nature this also applies. Would you agree or disagree that sleeping in a prison cell - locked up, limited in visitation, grub etc - but still inside a heated building with protection from the elements - is a better standard of living than sleeping outside in a doorway or moving from hostel to hostel every night?

There was one well-documented case of someone who ended up on the streets despite inheriting two houses. Simplistic statements like yours don't help.

As I've said, "ending up on the streets" is never a "deserved" outcome, because as a society we long ago decided that there is a minimum standard of living that every citizen is entitled to as a birthright, and that includes having somewhere indoors to sleep. Have you ever genuinely walked past someone curled up in a doorway shivering from the cold and thought "meh, that person probable did something to deserve it"? I'm sure there are some extreme right wingers with that sort of fundamental lack of empathy, but there's no way it's nearly as high as it tends to appear in internet debates.

hatrickpatrick · 16-09-2018 03:46PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Depends on wether you are talking about renting public housing or handing it over.

I'm always talking about renting it, to be honest. Taking badly needed public land out of public ownership, either by selling it to tenants or selling portions of it to developers in exchange for building the rest as social housing - is lunacy.

hatrickpatrick · 16-09-2018 03:50PM

Loves_lorries wrote: »

Unless you are unemployed, being opposed to water charges made no rational sense, working tax payers will now have to cough up more.

There were plenty of reasons for employed people to oppose them which I'll outline if you like, but do you feel the same about health and education? Should both be paid for by the end-user and not by the taxpayer generally?

16-09-2018 03:59PM

just to say something about the water charges protests -- like most people, I was in favour of water charges, but i can see why some people had a problem with them.

If you were earning the average (or even the median) wage or higher, you probably didn't have much of a personal issue with paying for water charges.

However, if you were a single person dependant upon social welfare (lets say €10k household income per year), and your annual charge came to €300, that's an overnight reduction in your household income of 3%.

If *anyone* in this country had their annual income slashed by 3% in a time of economic recovery, there would be people on the streets. We saw a similarly enormous public backlash, hysteria perhaps, over the pension contribution for civil servants.

Water charges might have been a good idea for those of us who could afford to pay it. The average worker would have easily been able to afford it. But if you're talking about an annual, overnight reduction in your household income by 3% or higher, well that's a different story.

There probably should have been a poverty-proofing means test built into the charges from the very beginning. That's just one of multiple ways in which the Government managed to fcuk it up.

16-09-2018 04:09PM

This has got to be a pi** take

“At Take Back The City - Dublin we've been successfully occupying buildings now for 39 days - almost 6 weeks!

In the last few weeks we've seen solidarity actions & rallies in Waterford, Cork & Galway. It's time for the movement to grow. This is why we're running a training session so people can learn from our experience, share their own experiences, and plan for the coming months.

We will be doing practical sessions on Tuesday, giving you & your groups the skills to get crackn on

1) Planning & Defending an Occupation
2) Anti-Eviction Defense & Community Mobilising”

https://www.facebook.com/events/244932502884311/

P_1 · 16-09-2018 04:11PM

Graces7 wrote: »

Why please does this emotive word, "deserve" keep being used?

Housing, shelter , is a basic need and nothing to do with deserving.

And the equally emotive "contributing to society".

That has nothing to do with "deserving" either.

Housing is a right. Housing in a premium location is not.

Drop the Helen Lovejoy argument. Its tiresome

sexmag · 16-09-2018 04:16PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This has got to be a pi** take

“At Take Back The City - Dublin we've been successfully occupying buildings now for 39 days - almost 6 weeks!

In the last few weeks we've seen solidarity actions & rallies in Waterford, Cork & Galway. It's time for the movement to grow. This is why we're running a training session so people can learn from our experience, share their own experiences, and plan for the coming months.

We will be doing practical sessions on Tuesday, giving you & your groups the skills to get crackn on

1) Planning & Defending an Occupation
2) Anti-Eviction Defense & Community Mobilising”

https://www.facebook.com/events/244932502884311/

Pretty sure it's illegal to teach people how to be criminals

tayto lover · 16-09-2018 04:18PM

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Correct, the water charges failed because the public didn’t understand that the income base needed to be broadened.

That you can’t expect the same people to to pay for everything.

The set up was disasterous, the lead in was disasterous.

Very poor understanding of public opinion by FG.

I think it was only going to be one of the two, Water or Property Tax.
Had the Water come first then the people would have protest against the Property Tax.
As you said the same people are fed up paying all the taxes. I would have preferred to protest against the Property Tax.

blanch152 · 16-09-2018 04:22PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

just to say something about the water charges protests -- like most people, I was in favour of water charges, but i can see why some people had a problem with them.

If you were earning the average (or even the median) wage or higher, you probably didn't have much of a personal issue with paying for water charges.

However, if you were a single person dependant upon social welfare (lets say €10k household income per year), and your annual charge came to €300, that's an overnight reduction in your household income of 3%.

If *anyone* in this country had their annual income slashed by 3% in a time of economic recovery, there would be people on the streets. We saw a similarly enormous public backlash, hysteria perhaps, over the pension contribution for civil servants.

Water charges might have been a good idea for those of us who could afford to pay it. The average worker would have easily been able to afford it. But if you're talking about an annual, overnight reduction in your household income by 3% or higher, well that's a different story.

There probably should have been a poverty-proofing means test built into the charges from the very beginning. That's just one of multiple ways in which the Government managed to fcuk it up.

There are plenty of public servants who saw their pay cut and the pension levy introduced during the period 2008-2010 by a multiple of 3% and still haven't had it restored.

Brendan Bendar · 16-09-2018 04:50PM

As I see it, the water charges failed because for some reason the presence of a meter outside ones residence seemed to smack of ‘someone looking at you’ .

The fact that that someone was the State seemed to rile up a certain coterie who didn’t,it seemed, like the State looking at them and their activities.
Why this was so is a matter for conjecture.

The Bullhorn Brigade tapped into this feeling, and harnessed a badly run Govt campaign into a national opposition movement. They gave a reason for the nults and spongs to get up early, something they would never do for legitimate employment.

The opposers had no interest in the big picture, those running the campaign had no interest other than promoting their own views.

The end result will be that water issues will stagnate and be years behind time.

Witness the issues we had with the drought this year.

DebDynamite · 16-09-2018 04:50PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why do we have a right to demand free healthcare and free public education, then? Who decides which rights are legitimate and which ones are not? Should all healthcare and education be private, and therefore if someone can't afford it well tough sh!t, they can die of treatable cancer while their kids never learn to read and write?

I know you don't agree with the above statements. I'm making them to illustrate how absurd it is that you're making absolutist statements about something else essential for living not being a right, when I'm pretty sure you'll readily agree that healthcare and education are, indeed, rights which are provided for by the state for those who can't afford them.

Because by providing free education and healthcare, we are raising a healthy, educated future workforce, who will then be able to provide a home for their own families. Teach a man to fish and all that...

The Frederick St protest and reaction

Comments