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

Fr McVerry supporting lessons in how to occupy properties

[Deleted User]

This man has lost all credibility in my eye. Whatever your views on the housing situation, it’s never right to enter someone else’s property illegally. But teaching people how to do so is beyond belief.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/in-an-emergency-you-take-emergency-action-fr-mcverry-supports-take-back-the-city-workshops-on-occupying-vacant-buildings-37327369.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Yer Da sells Avon

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Yeah, but people only want free houses to live in in Dublin City centre, not in Bally-go-backwards in the Wesht.

Most people don't want 'free houses' - they just want to be able to work and live in Dublin at an affordable cost.

Buford T Justice

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Most people don't want 'free houses' - they just want to be able to work and live in Dublin at an affordable cost.

Mmhmm.... Sure.....
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057899809

bloodless_coup

What's this 10,000 homeless figure about anyway. You'd be tripping over homeless walking down the street if that was the case.

Yer Da sells Avon

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Mmhmm.... Sure.....
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057899809

That's one person (who incidentally, didn't even want to live in the city centre).

Working people just want to be able to afford to live within reasonable distance of where they work.

mikhail

TheCitizen wrote: »

LOL at the right wingers on here that don't like the occupy stunt. I'm not totally in agreement with all of the tactics of the Take Back the City campaign myself but they're succeeding in highlighting the issue and the lack of action relating to it.

I'm in broad agreement with their aims, but not their tactics. People like you, who associate left wing politics with half assed sit-in protests and disrespect for the rule of law, are why the left can't win a double digit percentage of Dail seats.

TheCitizen

Jensen White Robot wrote: »

Not a rightwinger - and I doubt you're lolling.

Don't agree with private property being broken into or people being held up from going home to family after a long day's work. How it's an unreasonable position is beyond me. And a lot of middle class leftwingers know it, but need to pretend that it's totally fine and they're not bourgeois.

There are two things at issue here from my viewpoint; rent prices are extortionate in cities in this country to a scandalous degree and nothing is being done about it, this occupy student protest is designed to highlight that I presume.

The other point is there are lots of buildings being left vacant in our cities with landlords for various reasons sitting on them. Many of these building fall into disrepair and end up being boarded up. This shouldn't be allowed to continue.

kneemos

doylefe wrote: »

What's this 10,000 homeless figure about anyway. You'd be tripping over homeless walking down the street if that was the case.

Anybody on any kind of assisted accommodation counts as homeless I think,even if they have a flat or a house.

TheCitizen

mikhail wrote: »

I'm in broad agreement with their aims, but not their tactics. People like you, who associate left wing politics with half assed sit-in protests and disrespect for the rule of law, are why the left can't win a double digit percentage of Dail seats.

Didn't I say I wasn't in total agreement with their tactics myself. Amazing how you just glossed over that comment in my brief remark

begbysback

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This man has lost all credibility in my eye. Whatever your views on the housing situation, it’s never right to enter someone else’s property illegally. But teaching people how to do so is beyond belief.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/in-an-emergency-you-take-emergency-action-fr-mcverry-supports-take-back-the-city-workshops-on-occupying-vacant-buildings-37327369.html

"He said that the occupation of vacant buildings is fine, once there is no violence or damage to the property"

Hes probably the only charity out there where you know your donation will go where intended.

It makes news for homelessness which is his business - why wouldn't he support it?

n!ghtmancometh

People have some nerve criticising Peter McVerry. He does more work to help vulnerable people in one day than any of the whingers here will do in their lifetime. He sees the reality of the housing problem and the hugely negative impact it's having currently, and the damage it is causing young children now which will have severe repercussions in the future, day in and day out. Unbelievably selfish attitude most of ye have. Not surprising though.

JupiterKid

The housing crisis at at such a point that I support these occupations, as long as they are not forcing anyone out or damaging the occupied property.

I have expertise in housing and planning policy so I actually know what I'm talking about. Dublin in particular has a housing emergency. Desperate times call for desperate action.

There should ve a tax on vacant residential properties to put them back into use like in Holland and Denmark. we also need a huge social housing programne. It's pathetic and disingenous of Leo V and Eoghan Murphy deeming houses costing €320k in Dublin as "affordable."

This is a direct insult to the intelligence of an entire generation locked out of securing their long term housing needs. This neo-liberal Thatcherite free market ideology has utterly failed and the consequences are there for all to see.

[Deleted User]

NIMAN wrote: »

I think most people in the country know for several years now that there is a homeless crisis (or a constructed one as some believe), they don't need people illegally occupying properties to tell them.

Breaking the law is breaking the law. Private individuals whose property is being illegally taken over should have the law protect them.

When are Take Back the City going to take over government and church owned vacant properties?

but doesn't this strike you? That it's been a problem for years and everyone knows it but it's not being confronted? It's why it needs more attention, it needs to be shoved under people's noses constantly instead of just being casually dismissed

mikhail

TheCitizen wrote: »

Didn't I say I wasn't in total agreement with their tactics myself. Amazing how you just glossed over that comment in my brief remark

Yeah, amazing on how I focussed on the remark branding anyone who disagreed with you as a right winger. It's almost like I had no further interest in what you had to say.

kneemos

n!ghtmancometh wrote: »

People have some nerve criticising Peter McVerry. He does more work to help vulnerable people in one day than any of the whingers here will do in their lifetime. He sees the reality of the housing problem and the hugely negative impact it's having currently, and the damage it is causing young children now which will have severe repercussions in the future, day in and day out. Unbelievably selfish attitude most of ye have. Not surprising though.

Well he doesn't have a day job.

Trasna1

TheCitizen wrote: »

LOL at the right wingers on here that don't like the occupy stunt. I'm not totally in agreement with all of the tactics of the Take Back the City campaign myself but they're succeeding in highlighting the issue and the lack of action relating to it.

I don't know what more highlighting the issue requires. There is a story on housing every day in the news.

As I said before, protests will not make the thousands of construction workers appear to build social and affordable housing.

TheCitizen

n!ghtmancometh wrote: »

People have some nerve criticising Peter McVerry. He does more work to help vulnerable people in one day than any of the whingers here will do in their lifetime. He sees the reality of the housing problem and the hugely negative impact it's having currently, and the damage it is causing young children now which will have severe repercussions in the future, day in and day out. Unbelievably selfish attitude most of ye have. Not surprising though.

It appears those of a selfish mindset are in the majority on here which is sad

ANDREWMUFC

I find Father McVerry a creepy man

Gimme A Pound

TheCitizen wrote: »

There are two things at issue here from my viewpoint; rent prices are extortionate in cities in this country to a scandalous degree and nothing is being done about it, this occupy student protest is designed to highlight that I presume.

The other point is there are lots of buildings being left vacant in our cities with landlords for various reasons sitting on them. Many of these building fall into disrepair and end up being boarded up. This shouldn't be allowed to continue.

I agree fully but I don't agree with people breaking the law to do it, or to sneer "rightwingers" at those with this view.

n!ghtmancometh wrote: »

People have some nerve criticising Peter McVerry. He does more work to help vulnerable people in one day than any of the whingers here will do in their lifetime. He sees the reality of the housing problem and the hugely negative impact it's having currently, and the damage it is causing young children now which will have severe repercussions in the future, day in and day out. Unbelievably selfish attitude most of ye have. Not surprising though.

People can have both views - I hugely respect him but I don't agree with him taking this particular approach.

He certainly does do far far far more though than people who whinge about nothing being done (yet don't do anything themselves either).

kneemos

Not a lot the ordinary Joe can do about the housing crisis.

ThunbergsAreGo

begbysback wrote: »

"He said that the occupation of vacant buildings is fine, once there is no violence or damage to the property"

Hes probably the only charity out there where you know your donation will go where intended.

It makes news for homelessness which is his business - why wouldn't he support it?

Exactly it is solid marketing by him

[Deleted User]

riffmongous wrote: »

I can think of loads of harmless reasons to 'illegally enter someone's property', to say it's never right is a bit naive. Now if there's someone living there it's a no go obviously but there are plenty of long vacant or extensive properties out there where it's harmless. Did you never kick a ball over the wall as a child? Take a shortcut while out walking? Go camping?

In those situations, one isn’t illegally occupying the premises.

Wheeliebin30

n!ghtmancometh wrote: »

People have some nerve criticising Peter McVerry. He does more work to help vulnerable people in one day than any of the whingers here will do in their lifetime. He sees the reality of the housing problem and the hugely negative impact it's having currently, and the damage it is causing young children now which will have severe repercussions in the future, day in and day out. Unbelievably selfish attitude most of ye have. Not surprising though.

And his company get paid handsomely for it.

TheBoyConor

Exaclty. It's all overblow imo.

There are large amounts of people "homeless" but are living in their parents or siblings homes or in some cases with a friend and are probably paying something towards it. Yet they are registered as homeless in an attempt to get another notch up the housing list.

Then you have the long term street homeless, ie they are genuinely homeless but their not having a roof over their heads is not their primary problem. Their homlessness is a consequence of a whole host of things like drug addictions, alcoholism, mental health issues, etc etc. You could put them in a brand new semi D in a leafy suburb but they'd probably be sleeping in a doorway again within a few weeks because they don't want to be there because for any number of reasons, eg they fear their drug dealer to whom they owe money will come for them there, the house gets overrun with other junkies or whinos they have to get away from or they flood/burn down the house while whacked out of their heads.

In reality the number of genuinely homeless but hard working decent honest people is actually quite modest by comparison. They are a minority of the total homeless number.

And that is because for most hard working ambitious people, if they cannot get a home they simply move away to where there are better opportunities whether that is to to another city, county or country and they are adult enough to fend for and look after themselves.

These "occupations" are just the usual mixture of social justice warriors like Fr McVerry & Fergus Finlay, champagne socialists like Claire Daly and Rich Boy Barrett and plain old crusties who will get on any band wagon going as long as there is a "stick it to the man" element to it.

TheCitizen

Jensen White Robot wrote: »

I agree fully but I don't agree with people breaking the law to do it, or to sneer "rightwingers" at those with this view.
.

Breaking the law without hurting anyone is a time honoured form of protest. It's good to see young people engaging in this subject matter.

Rightwingers in my experience have no solutions to issues such as this, they usually trot out the same old tropes complaining about "protestors who live off the backs of working people etc." The students in this matter have a legitimate cause to protest.

_Brian

riffmongous wrote: »

so landlords can't make any profit, at all? Or is it more that they aren't making enough profit? How big a profit should they be making? I saw a thread there a few months ago where some guy put up theoretical numbers to claim you couldn't make a profit renting out..ignoring the fact that the rent was also paying off the mortgage

You see, any other business person and nobody cares that the business pays off the assets and they make a healthy profit.

People can protest all they want and scorn at landlords wanting to make a profit, but when less and less landlords are attracted to the rental business it means a less and less functioning rental sector which drives the remaining rents up.

I know where I live there were always houses available but as the profits became less and less houses that had been rented for decades were sold off into private ownership, plus the population has increased. Now when a house comes available there’s a scramble as there is no supply.
If it were sufficiently profitable there would be more properties available and with more units rents would settle to a more sustainable level.

Wheeliebin30

JupiterKid wrote: »

The housing crisis at at such a point that I support these occupations, as long as they are not forcing anyone out or damaging the occupied property.

I have expertise in housing and planning policy so I actually know what I'm talking about. Dublin in particular has a housing emergency. Desperate times call for desperate action.

There should ve a tax on vacant residential properties to put them back into use like in Holland and Denmark. we also need a huge social housing programne. It's pathetic and disingenous of Leo V and Eoghan Murphy deeming houses costing €320k in Dublin as "affordable."

This is a direct insult to the intelligence of an entire generation locked out of securing their long term housing needs. This neo-liberal Thatcherite free market ideology has utterly failed and the consequences are there for all to see.

Have you a costing for this large social house build and where the money will come from?

I await your answer like I have for weeks now and no one can give any figures.

Ah shurre just build da houses riiight.

Gimme A Pound

TheCitizen wrote: »

Breaking the law without hurting anyone is a time honoured form of protest. It's good to see young people engaging in this subject matter.

Rightwingers in my experience have no solutions to issues such as this, they usually trot out the same old tropes complaining about "protestors who live off the backs of working people etc." The students in this matter have a legitimate cause to protest.

Other forms of protest would be a solution obviously. And not blocking people from going home after a day's work to their families, not having to organise babysitting (If available). There was a disgusting reverse snobbish attitude towards such folk - "sher who cares about those folk for having the nerve to be middle class."

Also, why is it ok to break into someone else's private property that they worked hard for? It shouldn't be left vacant but people shouldn't break into it either.

[Deleted User]

n!ghtmancometh wrote: »

People have some nerve criticising Peter McVerry. He does more work to help vulnerable people in one day than any of the whingers here will do in their lifetime. He sees the reality of the housing problem and the hugely negative impact it's having currently, and the damage it is causing young children now which will have severe repercussions in the future, day in and day out. Unbelievably selfish attitude most of ye have. Not surprising though.

So, it’s ok to break into uninhabitable properties and refuse to leave? Would these properties be acceptable to homeless people if they were offered by Fr McVerry or any homeless organisation?

It’s ok to teach people how to break into these dwellings and teach them how to avoid eviction?

WOW.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

In those situations, one isn’t illegally occupying the premises.

You said enter

TheCitizen

Jensen White Robot wrote: »

Other forms of protest would be a solution obviously. And not blocking people from going home after a day's work to their families, not having to organise babysitting (If available). There was a disgusting reverse snobbish towards such folk - "sher who cares about those folk for having the nerve to be middle class."

Most of the protestors look to be middle class. They're protesting about being priced out of living in their own city due to extortionately high rent and property prices. That's what I think this is about rather than homelessness, which is a fair point of protest in any case.