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

Wheeliebin30

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

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.

Boo hoo the big bad boogie men wore a balaclava.

Who can I cry too.

Cry me a river...

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Boo hoo the big bad boogie men wore a balaclava.

Who can I cry too.

Cry me a river...

You ok petal

Alrigghtythen

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Boo hoo the big bad boogie men wore a balaclava.

Who can I cry too.

Cry me a river...

Protestors would never cover their faces at all

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/homelessness-protesters-descend-dublin-premises-13215130.amp

[Deleted User]

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Protestors would never cover their faces at all

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/homelessness-protesters-descend-dublin-premises-13215130.amp

Perhaps the whole point is that the protesters don't enjoy the same exemptions from the law (eg relating to assault) that Gardai can enjoy, and that there may be a legitimate public interest in being able to identify those who enjoy those exemptions!

It's a tough job, being a Garda, but it also confers certain privileges. And in a democratic society, those privileges should be transparent. Not shielded with balaclavas, one might hope.

sexmag

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Perhaps the whole point is that the protesters don't enjoy the same exemptions from the law (eg relating to assault) that Gardai can enjoy, and that there may be a legitimate public interest in being able to identify those who enjoy those exemptions!

It's a tough job, being a Garda, but it also confers certain privileges. And in a democratic society, those privileges should be transparent. Not shielded with balaclavas, one might hope.

The guards (which you seem to be implying) are not exempt from assault, they are however allowed use reasonable force to carry out their duties, this is usually a last resort or used as a defend mechanism.

That kind of misguided thinking is another reason the guards have a tough job

Also protesters should not be assaulting people either, whether their face is covered or not.

What a strange comment

[Deleted User]

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Perhaps the whole point is that the protesters don't enjoy the same exemptions from the law (eg relating to assault) that Gardai can enjoy, and that there may be a legitimate public interest in being able to identify those who enjoy those exemptions!

It's a tough job, being a Garda, but it also confers certain privileges. And in a democratic society, those privileges should be transparent. Not shielded with balaclavas, one might hope.

Or maybe they didn’t want mummy and daddy finding out where they were spending their time.

tayto lover

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Perhaps the whole point is that the protesters don't enjoy the same exemptions from the law (eg relating to assault) that Gardai can enjoy, and that there may be a legitimate public interest in being able to identify those who enjoy those exemptions!

It's a tough job, being a Garda, but it also confers certain privileges. And in a democratic society, those privileges should be transparent. Not shielded with balaclavas, one might hope.

I don't believe they have any problems with demonstrators at all. I actually had a nice chat with a garda while on the Water protests as he walked alongside us.
Obviously they have difficulties when the thug element are protesting. I doubt some of those actually know why they're protesting but it offers a great opportunity to shout abuse or spit in someone's face as we saw in Darndale. Maybe that's why they wear the cover.

Captain Obvious

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.

It's a standard part of the public order uniform. The whole uniform is designed to be fire retardant. How is that so difficult to understand? Their vests were stab proof and boots were steal capped but I doubt they were expecting to be stabbed or have their foot crushed.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's a standard part of the public order uniform. The whole uniform is designed to be fire retardant. How is that so difficult to understand? Their vests were stab proof and boots were steal capped in I doubt they were expecting to be stabbed or have their foot crushed.

Put simply?

Because unless they all have fire retardant hands, why no gloves?

Maybe the first thing they'd use to extinguish flames would have been their flutes?

Hitman3000

Johnny Dogs wrote:

Because unless they all have fire retardant hands, why no gloves?

Johnny even the dogs on the street know the reason for the balaclava was to hide their faces but it won't be acknowledged here or anywhere else. The official line is it is part of the uniform even without the helmets.

McMurphy

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Johnny even the dogs on the street know the reason for the balaclava was to hide their faces but it won't be acknowledged here or anywhere else. The official line is it is part of the uniform even without the helmets.

Stop messing with my username

No problem with them using the masks incidentally, there's just no need for the top dogs to try and blow smoke up anyone's arse with the "fire protection" arse biscuit spiel.

You expect the gardai to be honest, warts and all. Sugar coat cakes, not reality.

Hitman3000

Johnny Dogs wrote:

You expect the gardai to be honest, warts and all. Sugar coat cakes, not reality.

Funny I have several family members who are guards and honestly I don't believe half of what they say.

hatrickpatrick

tayto lover wrote: »

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.

Surely it becomes a matter of criminal contempt of court once a court order is issued and then actively defied?

hatrickpatrick

Yeah_Right wrote: »

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.

If you want to provoke social unrest, this is exactly how you provoke social unrest.

pjohnson

Apparently protests planned today. Has everyone here got their balaclavas to "counter" them?

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Put simply?

Because unless they all have fire retardant hands, why no gloves?

Maybe the first thing they'd use to extinguish flames would have been their flutes?

Poor Johnny. You just can't seem to pick a line. So now you have no issue with the hoods being flame retardant but you have an issue with them not wearing gloves as well? The only person suggesting that they were expecting fire is you.

Alrigghtythen

It might be worth considering making Balaclava's part of the standard uniform for the public order unit.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Poor Johnny. You just can't seem to pick a line.

I don't understand what you mean here, maybe dumb it down for me.

So now you have no issue with the hoods being flame retardant but you have an issue with them not wearing gloves as well?

I'll type this slowly, so try and keep up.

I have not an issue with Gardai wearing fire retardant masks/balaclavas to conceal their identities, they can wear gimp masks if they wish, we get why they do so - doxxing.

There's no need for yourself or top brass from within the organisation to spin a load of waffle about fire retardant masks for safety when it's as plain as the nose on your face that if fire was the real concern, well then they are not fully dressed to deal with it.

Remember what Leo said about needing to know when the gardai say something, that we can trust them?

The only person suggesting that they were expecting fire is you.

As for them expecting fire, I don't believe I ever suggested any such thing, but maybe you would like to direct me to where I posted it?

I'll be here when you get back.

[Deleted User]

The Journal have a piece about today's protest but have turned off commenting - par for the course when they won't want anybody to argue with their agenda on this topic.

Wheeliebin30

Free houses for the most “vulnerable” is about as much as you will hear today.

tayto lover

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Surely it becomes a matter of criminal contempt of court once a court order is issued and then actively defied?

Apparently you can get court orders in a Civil court too. Civil matter it was.

All Seeing Eye

Dead beats are the new Elites

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean here, maybe dumb it down for me.

I'll type this slowly, so try and keep up.

I have not an issue with Gardai wearing fire retardant masks/balaclavas to conceal their identities, they can wear gimp masks if they wish, we get why they do so - doxxing.

There's no need for yourself or top brass from within the organisation to spin a load of waffle about fire retardant masks for safety when it's as plain as the nose on your face that if fire was the real concern, well then they are not fully dressed to deal with it.

Remember what Leo said about needing to know when the gardai say something, that we can trust them?

As for them expecting fire, I don't believe I ever suggested any such thing, but maybe you would like to direct me to where I posted it?

I'll be here when you get back.

First of all, Johnny, I feel I should point out to you that how fast you type doesn't dictate how fast someone reads a forum post.

Secondly, it has been pointed out a number of times that the hoods the Gardaí wear are part of the public order uniform. They just happen to be flame retardant, as are the overalls. Wearing them does not mean you expect to be in a fire. They also provide other protections, from the weather to smoke. You ask what they were expecting. I'd say they were expecting to be there for a while and wearing the thick leather gloves and heavy helmet and exterior body armour seemed like too much to wear at that time so they left them in the van in case they were needed so they could get ready quickly. It's just practical.

The only criticism from the Commissioner was that helmets should also have been worn too. You said the optics were bad. Is it your point that helmets would have been made these optics better?

[Deleted User]

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Surely it becomes a matter of criminal contempt of court once a court order is issued and then actively defied?

Yeah, it's an interesting charge. As far as I remember, only judges can originate a charge of criminal contempt, not the DPP or a Garda acting on behalf of the DPP.

Presumably that means that whatever judge was handling the case didn't want to get himself imbroiled in controversy, or didn't feel such a charge was deserved. An interesting glimpse into how the judiciary may feel about the protest, perhaps.

Yeah_Right

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If you want to provoke social unrest, this is exactly how you provoke social unrest.

I'd say it would result in most of these socialists staying in the suburbs and sitting around a (non commercial chain) coffee shop, sipping their fair trade espresso or chai, soy latte while pontificating about social justice and the government is crushing the people. They'd certainly be no where near the front lines if they thought they could an Alsatian chomping on them.

guylikeme

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'd say it would result in most of these socialists staying in the suburbs and sitting around a (non commercial chain) coffee shop, sipping their fair trade espresso or chai, soy latte while pontificating about social justice and the government is crushing the people. They'd certainly be no where near the front lines if they thought they could an Alsatian chomping on them.

What person wants to wilfully risk injury from the bad eggs of the protest. You can support what they are protesting about without wanting to risk personal injury

Graces7

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Free houses for the most “vulnerable” is about as much as you will hear today.

Like this family and many like them?

https://www.galwaydaily.com/life-style/features/desperate-galway-family-on-brink-of-homelessness/

Not seeking a free house but facing being homeless.

BBFAN

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?

I believe that people should a place to live him that gives them the dignity of not having a share a room with a room a stranger, a place where the cook their meals and one in which if they look after it and respect that they would have security of tenor.

A council tenant never owns the house the but they have security as long as they keep their side of the bargain.

I also feel children should be priority because it's a stable home that will be making or breaking of child.

padd b1975

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Free houses for the most “vulnerable” is about as much as you will hear today.

Another opportunity for the trots to shake their collection buckets at the proletariat.

Yer Da sells Avon

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?

As long as a tenant fulfills their end of the bargain (i.e. pays the rent on time and looks after the place), they should have full security of tenure - something which the vast majority of private sector landlords in this country can't/won't provide.

We need to move away from the idea that home ownership is a rite of passage. There should be no need for anyone to own a home.