Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Occupy Galway, fresh start thread

Options
12357…11

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    muppetkiller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,199 ✭✭✭muppetkiller


    Irishgoatman wrote: »
    bank losing all your savings by giving out huge dubious loans
    Sorry what ? This never happened. And if it did there would be riots not protests.


  • Options
    #123
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Don't have much time for the Occupy crowd myself, but it seems to be well established at this stage that their presence was legal. How can a council vote whether to break the law by evicting them or not?
    Or if they were never legal in the first place, how can the council vote whether to enforce the law or not?


  • Options
    #124
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,438 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Irishgoatman wrote: »
    What if you had a legitimate reason for protesting, such as the bank losing all your savings by giving out huge dubious loans, were on common/public land, not causing an obstruction in anyway etc ?.

    Just think about it a little more.

    Again, I'd ask what their "legitimate" reason for protesting was because I sure as hell didn't hear one from any of these occupy people. In fact the most recent one I heard was something to do with Germany and not about banks losing savings/loans etc.....

    It is illegal to set up camp on common/public land (thankfully), especially for 7 months. And as for an obstruction, that really depends on your point of view.


  • Options
    #125
    dloob
    Registered Users Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭dloob


    Irishgoatman wrote: »
    What if you had a legitimate reason for protesting, such as the bank losing all your savings by giving out huge dubious loans, were on common/public land, not causing an obstruction in anyway etc ?.

    Just think about it a little more.

    I'm sure that would be fine if you weren't causing an obstruction.
    Now if you decided to wall off an area for your exclusive use with tents and pallets then we have a problem.


  • Options
    #126
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,438 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Don't have much time for the Occupy crowd myself, but it seems to be well established at this stage that their presence was legal. How can a council vote whether to break the law by evicting them or not?
    Or if they were never legal in the first place, how can the council vote whether to enforce the law or not?

    They should have been moved on ages ago, legal or illegal. The precedent it has set is not encouraging.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    muppetkiller wrote: »
    Sorry what ? This never happened. And if it did there would be riots not protests.
    Most non-millionaires will lose more money over the next few years due to tax hikes, pay cuts and stumping up for services that used to be free than they would have lost if their savings were wiped out in a bank collapse.


  • Options
    #128
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    kippy wrote: »
    They should have been moved on ages ago, legal or illegal. The precedent it has set is not encouraging.
    I don't see how they can be moved on by a council vote if they are legal. What if Crowe decided to sell crack in St Pat's playground and passed it in a council vote?


  • Options
    #129
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,438 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I don't see how they can be moved on by a council vote if they are legal. What if Crowe decided to sell crack in St Pat's playground and passed it in a council vote?

    It was obviously an illegal encampment. If crowe managed to pass that vote he wouldn't be trying to implement the will of the majority.


  • Options
    #130
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    kippy wrote: »
    It is illegal to set up camp on common/public land (thankfully), especially for 7 months. And as for an obstruction, that really depends on your point of view.
    If so, does the council now get to decide which laws are enforced in Galway city?


  • Options
    #131
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,438 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    If so, does the council now get to decide which laws are enforced in Galway city?

    I totally agree, these guys should have been moved on months ago, I have no idea why they weren't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    kippy wrote: »
    It was obviously an illegal encampment. If crowe managed to pass that vote he wouldn't be trying to implement the will of the majority.
    What's obvious about it? And if it's obvious why didn't the Gardai move them immediately?
    Do the council decide which laws are applicable and when in Galway city?
    Can't stand OG TBH, but the whole process stinks more than their campsite.


  • Options
    #133
    ben.schlomo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,996 ✭✭✭✭ben.schlomo


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Most non-millionaires will lose more money over the next few years due to tax hikes, pay cuts and stumping up for services that used to be free than they would have lost if their savings were wiped out in a bank collapse.
    Things that should never have been free in the first place such as water you mean. Every other developed nation charges for water, so should we.

    As for O.G, glad they are gone, they served no real purpose and were never going to achieve anything meaningful, if you applied the product life cycle to them id have said they reached decline long before Xmas.By all means protest but in a more realistic fashion, sitting in a large compound doing nothing all day is simply going to bring criticism ,such as they get here, onto themselves.

    On another point, i see the GA facebook put a link up to pdineens pics from the camp taken on Tuesday, good god it looked manky inside, and they were cooking in these conditions.


  • Options
    #134
    muppetkiller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,199 ✭✭✭muppetkiller


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Most non-millionaires will lose more money over the next few years due to tax hikes, pay cuts and stumping up for services that used to be free than they would have lost if their savings were wiped out in a bank collapse.

    It's true we'll pay more taxes in the future but that's nothing to do with the comment I made. The banks did not lose our savings but they will in future be the cause for us earning less, until such time as the country pays off it's debts. (And I'm not talking just about the Bank Debt)


  • Options
    #135
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    ben.schlomo wrote: »
    Things that should never have been free in the first place such as water you mean. Every other developed nation charges for water, so should we.
    Should have or not makes little difference to the fact that we will now have to pay for them when we didn't before.


  • Options
    #136
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,438 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    What's obvious about it? And if it's obvious why didn't the Gardai move them immediately?
    Do the council decide which laws are applicable and when in Galway city?
    Can't stand OG TBH, but the whole process stinks more than their campsite.

    Yes, the process stinks to high heaven. Galway City Council are one of the most useless ones around, one only has to look at their record.
    One does have to ask, why they were left there so long, when essentially the Gardai could have and should have moved them on a lot sooner.
    I would agree with you on those points.


  • Options
    #137
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,438 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Should have or not makes little difference to the fact that we will now have to pay for them when we didn't before.

    There's a lot of stuff out there that we never paid for before, but we have to now.
    Again, they reasons that the occupy movement existed at all and what they were protesting against were so wide and varied, with no focus at all, that they lost support very quickly.


  • Options
    #138
    muppetkiller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,199 ✭✭✭muppetkiller


    kippy wrote: »
    Galway City Council are one of the most useless ones around, one only has to look at their record.

    That's unfair ...I'm pretty sure they're all useless Country-wide :D


  • Options
    #139
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,438 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    muppetkiller wrote: »
    That's unfair ...I'm pretty sure they're all useless Country-wide :D

    Fair point, perhaps I am more aware of their uselessness in Galway thanks to the great coverage they get in local media.


  • Options
    #140
    Irishgoatman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭Irishgoatman


    muppetkiller wrote: »
    It's true we'll pay more taxes in the future but that's nothing to do with the comment I made. The banks did not lose our savings but they will in future be the cause for us earning less, until such time as the country pays off it's debts. (And I'm not talking just about the Bank Debt)

    Sorry but I must have missed something somewhere.

    I thought that Anglo Irish collapsed because it had more loans on its books than money, and anyone with savings only managed to keep them because the government bailed them out with tax payers money because they were guaranteed up to a certain level.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong.


  • Options
    #141
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Irishgoatman wrote: »
    I thought that Anglo Irish collapsed because it had more loans on its books than money, and anyone with savings only managed to keep them because the government bailed them out with tax payers money because they were guaranteed up to a certain level.
    I don't think anyone ever had a problem with the €50,000 bank guarantee.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    scholar007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 902 ✭✭✭scholar007


    Irishgoatman wrote: »
    scholar007, you are so funny and witty that I'm splitting my sides with laughter:rolleyes:.

    I'm sure that your IQ must be off the charts.


    I know I crack myself up sometimes.

    Would you believe my IQ was too high for Mensa - They said I would need to set up a separate organisation for people with an extremely high IQ like myself. ;)


  • Options
    #143
    muppetkiller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,199 ✭✭✭muppetkiller


    Irishgoatman wrote: »
    Sorry but I must have missed something somewhere.

    I thought that Anglo Irish collapsed because it had more loans on its books than money, and anyone with savings only managed to keep them because the government bailed them out with tax payers money because they were guaranteed up to a certain level.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Anglo Irish mainly dealt in business and commercial banking, and had only a limited retail presence in the major Irish cities. The bank had no Liquidity but lied , broke every rule and was probably in bed with the regulator for a long time.
    So I'd say personal deposits by the average Joe soap were pretty much non-existent (I'd say but I've no evidence to back that up) . Any deposits that were from the average Joe were covered by the Deposit Guarantee Scheme (DGS) which applies to every bank anyway.


  • Options
    #144
    Irishgoatman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭Irishgoatman


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I don't think anyone ever had a problem with the €50,000 bank guarantee.

    True, but any government guarantee is backed up with tax payers money.

    Are we perhaps going a little off thread?.


  • Options
    #145
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,438 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Irishgoatman wrote: »
    True, but any government guarantee is backed up with tax payers money.

    What would you expect it to be backed up by?
    Ultimately some taxpayer or citizen somewhere pays for everything....


  • Options
    #146
    Irishgoatman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭Irishgoatman


    kippy wrote: »
    What would you expect it to be backed up by?
    Ultimately some taxpayer or citizen somewhere pays for everything....

    My point exactly but when there are dodgy deals being done why should the tax payer have to be the one to suffer?.

    This is what the OG was originally about I thought.


  • Options
    #147
    topcat77
    Registered Users Posts: 744 ✭✭✭topcat77


    Was a pity it's finish the way it has. I support the occupy movement but i don't like how it progressed. I believe they should of moved on much earlier and not alienate the general public. I think they have now destroyed any chance of other protests starting off the same way with a different agenda. I don't mind a visual stand for a month to gather momentum then move the protest to a higher level. Think it turned a little selfish.


  • Options
    #148
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,438 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Irishgoatman wrote: »
    My point exactly but when there are dodgy deals being done why should the tax payer have to be the one to suffer?.

    This is what the OG was originally about I thought.

    Was it, I thought it was about being anti German (based on some data in this post)

    (As an aside) I suppose the taxpayers/citizens benefit when these "dodgy" deal are done as well.


  • Options
    #149
    Irishgoatman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭Irishgoatman


    topcat77 wrote: »
    Was a pity it's finish the way it has. I support the occupy movement but i don't like how it progressed. I believe they should of moved on much earlier and not alienate the general public. I think they have now destroyed any chance of other protests starting off the same way with a different agenda. I don't mind a visual stand for a month to gather momentum then move the protest to a higher level. Think it turned a little selfish.

    I certainly agree with a lot of what you're saying, but did it really alienate the general public?.
    I'm not sure that it did. I never heard of people protesting in the square against the camp, did you?:).


  • Options
    #150
    crusher000
    Registered Users Posts: 649 ✭✭✭crusher000


    kippy wrote: »
    Again, I'd ask what their "legitimate" reason for protesting was because I sure as hell didn't hear one from any of these occupy people. In fact the most recent one I heard was something to do with Germany and not about banks losing savings/loans etc.....

    It is illegal to set up camp on common/public land (thankfully), especially for 7 months. And as for an obstruction, that really depends on your point of view.
    They were protesting about the austerity measures being forced upon us cut backs in spending in health,education,policing whilst billions ot OUR money is being sent to Europe to pay back the bond holders and to bail out the FAILED banking system here. Basically the crap that's on the news every day.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,438 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    crusher000 wrote: »
    They were protesting about the austerity measures being forced upon us cut backs in spending in health,education,policing whilst billions ot OUR money is being sent to Europe to pay back the bond holders and to bail out the FAILED banking system here. Basically the crap that's on the news every day.
    Ah right, thats about the 3rd reason (on this post alone) I have seen for their protesting.
    So what was their alternative? Camping in public squares?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement