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

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What force was used on the occupants by the men in balaclavas?

You know the way the protesters ignored the high court order instructing them to leave?

Well I could have sworn that I read that the property owner hired some lads to enforce the order?

The illegal occupants were forced from the property.

Is this actually being disputed here?

You mean when he said they should have worn the helmets too? Hardly an indictment.

Well, a report has been ordered, hasn't been repeated since, so bit early to conclude either way.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

I understood that the squatters left quietly? And that the violence happened outside when some of their supporters attacked the Gardai physically and verbally, leading to a small number of arrests?

You can bet your Barney that if any violence was directed towards the squatters and their supporters that videos of it would have been on social media as it happened.

Read above and concentrate what was written, No one said violence was used in removing them, stop wishing I had written something I did not write.

Violence is not required to force someone to comply with a court order.

sexmag

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You know the way the protesters ignored the high court order instructing them to leave?

Well I could have sworn that I read that the property owner hired some lads to enforce the order?

The illegal occupants were forced from the property.

Is this actually being disputed here?

Well, a report has been ordered, hasn't been repeated since, so bit early to conclude either way.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Read above and concentrate what was written, No one said violence was used in removing them, stop wishing I had written something I did not write.

Violence is not required to force someone to comply with a court order.

There fixed your posts for you and left the actual relevant bits. These people are breaking the law and not complying with it so they were made comply with it

McMurphy

sexmag wrote: »

There fixed your posts for you and left the actual relevant bits. These people are breaking the law and not complying with it so they were made comply with it

Sure isn't that what I said to begin with

Which is why there is no need to bring up some imaginary shyte I did not post, about violence or indictments, try and argue with what was written if theirs merit in arguing with it - do so. Shouldn't be difficult.

Being discussed on newstalk now by the way for anyone that's interested.

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You know the way the protesters ignored the high court order instructing them to leave?

Well I could have sworn that I read that the property owner hired some lads to enforce the order?

The illegal occupants were forced from the property.

Is this actually being disputed here?

Well, a report has been ordered, hasn't been repeated since, so bit early to conclude either way.

So no force was used and it's too early to conclude the Gardaí did anything wrong.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So no force was used and it's too early to conclude the Gardaid anything wrong.

As said, I don't believe anyone is arguing that a high court order was enforced or not, dreadfully sorry that I didn't even hint it was violently enforced, but the illegal occupants were forced to go, fact.

Earlier, gardai insisted that the removal of protesters from the building by men wearing balaclavas was "a peaceful eviction".

Activists who were defying a High Court order to vacate 34 North Frederick Street in Dublin city centre were forced out by a group of unidentifiable men.

Seriously, is this really the level of semantics you wish to cling to?

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

As said, I don't believe anyone is arguing that a high court order was enforced or not, dreadfully sorry that I didn't even hint it was violently enforced, but the illegal occupants were forced to go, fact.

Seriously, is this really the level of semantics you wish to cling to?

It's fairly obvious the picture you are trying to paint throughout the thread. So to clarify again, no force was used.

knipex

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You know the way the protesters ignored the high court order instructing them to leave?

Well I could have sworn that I read that the property owner hired some lads to enforce the order?

The illegal occupants were forced from the property.

Is this actually being disputed here?

So let me get this straight.

Your issue is that a properly issued court order was executed (just to clarify in case you get take it incorrectly out I am not implying or suggesting that anyone should have actually been executed) ??

That the protestors should have been told and the court order handed to them with a polite instruction to please leave and when they refused then we all shrug our shoulders and leave them there ??

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's fairly obvious the picture you are trying to paint throughout the thread. So to clarify again, no force was used.

No force was used, the lads in balaclavas didn't force their way into the illegally occupied building, and the high court order wasn't enforced.

If you say so then.

Seth Brundle

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No force was used, the lads in balaclavas didn't force their way into the illegally occupied building, and the high court order wasn't enforced.

If you say so then.

So given your correction, what did the lads in balaclava do wrong and what did the gardai do wrong?

PlaneSpeeking

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No force was used, the lads in balaclavas didn't force their way into the illegally occupied building, and the high court order wasn't enforced.

If you say so then.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between "force" and "enforce".

McMurphy

knipex wrote: »

So let me get this straight.

Your issue is that a properly issued court order was executed (just to clarify in case you get take it incorrectly out I am not implying or suggesting that anyone should have actually been executed) ??

That the protestors should have been told and the court order handed to them with a polite instruction to please leave and when they refused then we all shrug our shoulders and leave them there ??

No, and if you have been following the thread from its earliest days, you will see that my position has been quite clear throughout.

I have no beef with the fact that the protesters were removed, they were illegally occupying a property - period.

I even stated that I understood why the guards in particular were needed at the scene, why they perhaps felt the need to conceal their identities, and the need to introduce legislation that tackles doxxing them.

My beef, and it seems to be shared with thr Taoiseach, the justice minister, the head of the policing authority, and various TDs and Ministers and councillors was the bad optics involved when masked anonymous men get deployed to our streets to enforce court orders.

Most of the right wing landlord supporting/Looney left bleeding heart liberals on this thread will prob be in a bit of a pickle ref my beef.

It's not about picking a side, it's entirely possible to simultaneously not support the actions of the protesters or the manner and who was involved in making them comply with the high court order.

Optics were bad, PR disaster for whoever sanctioned it.

Clarified?

McMurphy

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand the difference between "force" and "enforce".

I'm not sure you've quite gotten to grips with the ignore function, and how it works.

Your posts boasting about who you have on ignore are like a pile on ones sweaty backside, a dose of a constant irritation that no one really needs to hear about

sexmag

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No, and if you have been following the thread from its earliest days, you will see that my position has been quite clear throughout.

I have no beef with the fact that the protesters were removed, they were illegally occupying a property - period.

I even stated that I understood why the guards in particular were needed at the scene, why they perhaps felt the need to conceal their identities, and the need to introduce legislation that tackles doxxing them.

My beef, and it seems to be shared with thr Taoiseach, the justice minister, the head of the policing authority, and various TDs and Ministers and councillors was the bad optics involved when masked anonymous men get deployed to our streets to enforce court orders.

Most of the right wing landlord supporting/Looney left bleeding heart liberals on this thread will prob be in a bit of a pickle ref my beef.

It's not about picking a side, it's entirely possible to simultaneously not support the actions of the protesters or the manner and who was involved in making them comply with the high court order.

Optics were bad, PR disaster for whoever sanctioned it.

Clarified?

As this is a civil matter at the end of the day the property owner was fully entitled to inlist the help of people to ensure the illegal occupiers left their property. If you have an issue with a private citizen inlisting a private company to carry out their request then not much you can do about that to be honest, which is pretty much why the governement and the guards are washing their hands of it, a report will be released detaling a peaceful removal and that will be the end of it ultimately

tayto lover

sexmag wrote: »

As this is a civil matter at the end of the day the property owner was fully entitled to inlist the help of people to ensure the illegal occupiers left their property. If you have an issue with a private citizen inlisting a private company to carry out their request then not much you can do about that to be honest, which is pretty much why the governement and the guards are washing their hands of it, a report will be released detaling a peaceful removal and that will be the end of it ultimately

From what I've heard the occupiers were peaceful and left when told.
Apparently it was the rabble who gathered outside who caused the Garda all the trouble. They wanted trouble and probably traveled to the area to start it.

Potential-Monke

tayto lover wrote: »

Apparently it was the rabble who gathered outside who caused the Garda all the trouble. They wanted trouble and probably traveled to the area to start it.

This. This is what happened. The protestors left peacefully upon presentation of the court order, and the rabble outside caused the trouble. It's always the same. People travel to these social protests just to cause trouble and 'catch out' the Gardaí, and end up posting the worst looking part of a video without what led up to it.

Brendan Bendar

Potential-Monke wrote: »

This. This is what happened. The protestors left peacefully upon presentation of the court order, and the rabble outside caused the trouble. It's always the same. People travel to these social protests just to cause trouble and 'catch out' the Gardaí, and end up posting the worst looking part of a video without what led up to it.

Hmmmmm.... if that’s the case then the Gardaí ‘deserve’ it.

There wouldn’t be a major bunch of folk who do this, answer is identify the lawbreakers,pull those involved in that activity in, charge them, jail them if found guilty, two or three ‘peaceful’ protests later I can safely say the problem would be solved.

It’s a matter of sorting things out, acting on them, not arseboxing like what went on out in Jobstown.

Get in, make sure, cast iron,court case,bang bang, stiff fine,or lock up.

Problem solved....... move on.

Frank Bullitt

When someone says "Housing is a human right", do they mean that someone should have shelter? Or that they should own the place?

hatrickpatrick

Gintonious wrote: »

When someone says "Housing is a human right", do they mean that someone should have shelter? Or that they should own the place?

Personally I believe that social housing should always remain in council ownership for future tenants. Whether this means ongoing rent or whether you could come up with some sort of "lifetime occupancy" arrangement which means you own the house for all intents and purposes, but crucially, once you die or choose to move out, the ownership reverts to the state, so you can't pass it on, give it away, or sell it.

The mass, permanent sell-offs of social housing in the 2000s, both to tenants and to private developers as part of public private partnerships, were among the most moronic policies pursued by the boom-drunken Fianna Fail.

hatrickpatrick

knipex wrote: »

So let me get this straight.

Your issue is that a properly issued court order was executed (just to clarify in case you get take it incorrectly out I am not implying or suggesting that anyone should have actually been executed) ??

That the protestors should have been told and the court order handed to them with a polite instruction to please leave and when they refused then we all shrug our shoulders and leave them there ??

The Gardai should have done it as a matter of law enforcement. The optics of having the Gardai essentially look as if they were siding with and protecting a group of masked, unidentified private operators in a dodgy van were absolutely appalling, and pretty much everyone in the media and political circles has agreed with this. It was a foolish way to do this. If they were in contempt of court, the Gardai could have, and should have, been the ones to enter the property and arrest them. Private security firms are generally regarded as dodgy by the public for various reasons anyway, but the optics of this one were appalling.

Horrendous PR move if nothing else. It shouldn't have happened and most involved seem to now agree that it shouldn't have happened.

facehugger99

Gintonious wrote: »

When someone says "Housing is a human right", do they mean that someone should have shelter? Or that they should own the place?

They mean that someone else should pay for it.

tayto lover

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The Gardai should have done it as a matter of law enforcement. The optics of having the Gardai essentially look as if they were siding with and protecting a group of masked, unidentified private operators in a dodgy van were absolutely appalling, and pretty much everyone in the media and political circles has agreed with this. It was a foolish way to do this. If they were in contempt of court, the Gardai could have, and should have, been the ones to enter the property and arrest them. Private security firms are generally regarded as dodgy by the public for various reasons anyway, but the optics of this one were appalling.

Horrendous PR move if nothing else. It shouldn't have happened and most involved seem to now agree that it shouldn't have happened.

I was told it was a civil matter and the garda don't and can't get involved.
They are there only to prevent a breach of the peace.
When there was a breach of the peace they intervened.

[Deleted User]

Gintonious wrote: »

When someone says "Housing is a human right", do they mean that someone should have shelter? Or that they should own the place?

Shelter, I'd have thought (or hoped so)

There's absolutely no good reason why local authorities should have sold a single dwelling to council tenants, and I hope that practice ends as soon as possible. If people want a mortgage, let them go and get one privately.

The priority has to be stable accommodation, but home ownership is a totally different issue, and shouldn't be the job of local authorities to look after.

[Deleted User]

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Shelter, I'd have thought (or hoped so)

There's absolutely no good reason why local authorities should have sold a single dwelling to council tenants, and I hope that practice ends as soon as possible. If people want a mortgage, let them go and get one privately.

The priority has to be stable accommodation, but home ownership is a totally different issue, and shouldn't be the job of local authorities to look after.

After all, a stable was good enough for Jesus.

Yeah_Right

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hmmmmm.... if that’s the case then the Gardaí ‘deserve’ it.

There wouldn’t be a major bunch of folk who do this, answer is identify the lawbreakers,pull those involved in that activity in, charge them, jail them if found guilty, two or three ‘peaceful’ protests later I can safely say the problem would be solved.

It’s a matter of sorting things out, acting on them, not arseboxing like what went on out in Jobstown.

Get in, make sure, cast iron,court case,bang bang, stiff fine,or lock up.

Problem solved....... move on.

The Gards should be using tears gas, rubber bullets, batons and dogs. These soft, middle class wannabe socialists would soon be too busy to show up to the protests.

Wheeliebin30

Potential-Monke wrote: »

This. This is what happened. The protestors left peacefully upon presentation of the court order, and the rabble outside caused the trouble. It's always the same. People travel to these social protests just to cause trouble and 'catch out' the Gardaí, and end up posting the worst looking part of a video without what led up to it.

The court order was issued 2 weeks before the eviction,give it over.

Fake news, trump was spot on.

Wheeliebin30

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hmmmmm.... if that’s the case then the Gardaí ‘deserve’ it.

There wouldn’t be a major bunch of folk who do this, answer is identify the lawbreakers,pull those involved in that activity in, charge them, jail them if found guilty, two or three ‘peaceful’ protests later I can safely say the problem would be solved.

It’s a matter of sorting things out, acting on them, not arseboxing like what went on out in Jobstown.

Get in, make sure, cast iron,court case,bang bang, stiff fine,or lock up.

Problem solved....... move on.

It’s lies.

Court order was issued 2 weeks prior and they refused to get out.

Wheeliebin30

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The Gardai should have done it as a matter of law enforcement. The optics of having the Gardai essentially look as if they were siding with and protecting a group of masked, unidentified private operators in a dodgy van were absolutely appalling, and pretty much everyone in the media and political circles has agreed with this. It was a foolish way to do this. If they were in contempt of court, the Gardai could have, and should have, been the ones to enter the property and arrest them. Private security firms are generally regarded as dodgy by the public for various reasons anyway, but the optics of this one were appalling.

Horrendous PR move if nothing else. It shouldn't have happened and most involved seem to now agree that it shouldn't have happened.

Gards aren’t in the job for PR.

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

The court order was issued 2 weeks before the eviction,give it over.

Fake news, trump was spot on.

You realise you two are on the same page, ie - agree with each other yeah?

Anyway, threads prob ran it's course, everyone (with any semblance with sense or power) seems to agree what happened shouldn't have happened, and won't be repeated, a few blowhards in here seem to disagree with what their political masters think, can't get my head round that one this time, but at least they seem to have some sort of mind of their own that seems capable of differing from official party line.

One thing that doesn't.ever seem to have been cleared up for me, the fire retardant masks..... what were they expecting to happen?

Fire retardant seemed a bit OTT to me.

sexmag

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

One thing that doesn't.ever seem to have been cleared up for me, the fire retardant masks..... what were they expecting to happen?

Fire retardant seemed a bit OTT to me.

A unruly crowd was forseen (correctly albeit by a minority but still) and in my opinion the should have worn the full riot gear with helmets and all,who knows what could have kicked off