The Frederick St protest and reaction

Kermit.de.frog · 12-09-2018 8:35pm

20Cent wrote: »

If they are so wealthy they can leave building you own to rot while there is a housing crisis they're probably a prick yes.

No obligation to do anything. It's their property. You can think of them what you like.

Does not change the facts on the ground.

There may be very good reasons houses are not being rented also.

Also there seems to be an assumption somebody is rich because they may own a run down house.

yabadabado · 12-09-2018 8:35pm

20Cent wrote: »

If it's empty just sitting there then it makes no difference to them if someone moves in.

Of course it does,so naive.
What happens if one of these people who broke in injured themselves ?

12-09-2018 8:36pm

White_hills wrote: »

Nuisance in chief! Brilliant. Home your home now!

walked home as was the plan, chief

you achieved martyrdom on behalf of this cause yet? the chap in the tent saved now?

andekwarhola · 12-09-2018 8:36pm

I do agree with people's anger about the housing crisis and while some of the stuff being flung around about landlords is wooly student union bilge (as if owning a rental peppery makes you a capitalist oppressor), I do think there needs to be a balance struck between property rights and sitting on large amounts of unused land and property, especially in central locations. I'd welcome CPOs in a lot of those cases.

yabadabado · 12-09-2018 8:37pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Try adding an extra window to the front or your private property and you'll find that you can't do what you want with it.

Why would they do that?
Only making it easier for some prick to break in and occupy it .

_brendand_ · 12-09-2018 8:38pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

It’s their PRIVATE property they can do as they please with it.

**** me whats next I don’t use my car for a few days should I give it to some homeless person??

Well they *can* but is it right that during a housing crisis buildings are left unoccupied and unused? I agree that the more correct way to go about it is to encourage the owners of these properties to use them for such purposes by the appropriate incentives, but I imagine that was the intent of the protest. If you're determined to think that the protestors just wanted trouble and nothing else, so be it.

Wheeliebin30 · 12-09-2018 8:39pm

Imagine trying to drive your pregnant wife to the rotunda earlier with these morons blocking the way.

Sound lads.

Yer Da sells Avon · 12-09-2018 8:39pm

These Pints Are Savage wrote: »

Have you heard of planning permission?

The point I'm making is that you should similarly have to apply for permission to leave a house vacant.

_brendand_ · 12-09-2018 8:41pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No obligation to do anything. It's their property. You can think of them what you like.

Does not change the facts on the ground.

There may be very good reasons houses are not being rented also.

Also there seems to be an assumption somebody is rich because they may own a run down house.

If you have a house in the center of Dublin which you can afford to not use or rent out, you are most definitely rich, or an idiot (or maybe a rich idiot, but only one need to apply here).

McMurphy · 12-09-2018 8:41pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

But they weren’t working for/in conjunction with the GardaThey were there to evict people who were illegally occupying a building, more than likely on the behest of the building owner.

The Gardaere there to ensure that no one, evictors or evictees broke the law. The Gardaere not on either side.

"More than likely at the behest of the building owner".... in other words, you don't know, and AGS are refusing to comment who employed the unknown heavy enforcers.

Perhaps the Gards just coincidentally arrived at the same time as the heavies arrived, the two just had a chance meeting upon the street of an early Autumn evening?

This is After Hours I know, where anything can happen, the place where people will turn a blind eye to potential skullduggery taking place by people in unmarked vans with missing reg at the front, UK reg at the back right under the Gards noses, because you know they where there to uphold the law.

Yet at the same time I think this forum would go into meltdown if there was a thread opened that centred on a clapped out van with missing UK registered plates that happened to be driven by a member of a certain minority group. ......

So as I have already said, it's a bit rich to preach that the Gards were there to facilitate this gang of masked men, who if acting in a security capacity, one would expect to be obliged to wear some kind of identification, let alone be driving a vehicle that complied with our road traffic laws.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would have thought these same folk would expect to see the law of the land applied to each party, impartiality being assumed obviously?

Wheeliebin30 · 12-09-2018 8:41pm

_brendand_ wrote: »

Well they *can* but is it right that during a housing crisis buildings are left unoccupied and unused? I agree that the more correct way to go about it is to encourage the owners of these properties to use them for such purposes by the appropriate incentives, but I imagine that was the intent of the protest. If you're determined to think that the protestors just wanted trouble and nothing else, so be it.

Maybe they want to move in next week it doesn’t matter it’s their house they bought with their money.

No one should tell them how they should use it.

I can’t understand why people think they can.

yabadabado · 12-09-2018 8:41pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

The point I'm making is that you should similarly have to apply for permission to leave a house vacant.

Hahaha, Jaysus talk about delusion.

Yer Da sells Avon · 12-09-2018 8:42pm

yabadabado wrote: »

Hahaha, Jaysus talk about delusion.

In what way is it deluded?

12-09-2018 8:44pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

What about people trying to get home to pick up kids from crèche and have no other alternative?

Yep, pick up their kids from a €1500/2000 a month creche whatever the cost of it is, and then commute home to the arse end of Westmeath or wherever and probably muttering every mile of the way home about their miserable lifestyle. We did this during Celtic Tiger 1 and moaned mightily about it. Celtic Tiger 2 The Sequel finds us doing the exact same thing again and seemingly willing to do nothing about it.

F**k it, you know what, the Pavlovian worshippers of the system deserve their long miserable commutes if they continue to buy into a concept that treats them so badly in the long run.

_brendand_ · 12-09-2018 8:45pm

These Pints Are Savage wrote: »

No you shouldn't. And you don't.

Well think about it - what is the purpose of planning permission? To regulate the development of property such that it is not causing a nuisance to the overall society. How is valuable housing being left vacant not a nuisance to society. If the government can tell me I can't stick a house on some field that I own in the middle of Carlow, why should they not be able to tell me that I have to allow a property to be used?

10000maniacs · 12-09-2018 8:45pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

If your 'success' is based around buying properties and allowing them to appreciate during a housing crisis, while doing nothing with them, then you are neither a decent nor productive person - you're a leech.

Again, it is none of your business how the house is used. Lefties drooling over other peoples property. Quite sickening. Earn your own money.

Kermit.de.frog · 12-09-2018 8:46pm

_brendand_ wrote: »

If you have a house in the center of Dublin which you can afford to not use or rent out, you are most definitely rich, or an idiot (or maybe a rich idiot, but only one need to apply here).

Even if they are an idiot so what? It's their property.

Clearly the vast majority do rent out because it's economically advantageous to do so. Anyone not doing so you are talking about a tiny minority.

Again there may be other reasons a house is not suitable to rent.

NasserShammaz · 12-09-2018 8:47pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

"More or less at the behest of the building owner".... in other words, you don't know, and AGS are refusing to comment who employed the unknown heavy enforcers.

Perhaps the Gards just coincidentally arrived at the same time as the heavies arrived, the two just had a chance meeting upon the street of an early Autumn evening?

This is After Hours I know, where anything can happen, the place where people will turn a blind eye to potential skullduggery taking place by people in unmarked vans with missing reg at the front, UK reg at the back right under the Gards noses, because you know they where there to uphold the law.

Yet at the same time I think this forum would go into meltdown if there was a thread opened that centred on a clapped out van with missing UK registered plates that happened to be driven by a member of a certain minority group. ......

So as I have already said, it's a bit rich to preach that the Gards were there to facilitate this gang of masked men, who if acting in a security capacity, one would expect to be obliged to wear some kind of identification, let alone be driving a vehicle that complied with our road traffic laws.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would have thought these same folk would expect to see the law of the land applied to each party, impartiality being assumed obviously?

How much is it to rent a Guard these days

Yer Da sells Avon · 12-09-2018 8:47pm

10000maniacs wrote: »

Again, it is none of your business how the house is used. Lefties drooling over other peoples property. Quite sickening.

If you want to add an extra window to the front of your house, or re-clad the building to your own questionable individual taste, should that be none of anyone else's business?

Noveight · 12-09-2018 8:48pm

Deleted User wrote: »

F**k it, you know what, the Pavlovian worshippers of the system deserve their long miserable commutes if they continue to buy into a concept that treats them so badly in the long run.

For the most part they've no focking choice!

Sitting on your arse on O'Connell street at rush hour of a Wednesday won't put food on the table nor a school uniform on a young lad.

dxhound2005 · 12-09-2018 8:50pm

NasserShammaz wrote: »

How much is it to rent a Guard these days

More expensive than renting a Gard.

prinzeugen · 12-09-2018 8:51pm

Oh great. The "Shame, shame, shame on you" rent a mob is back is back in action with their so called peaceful protests.

I wish they would feck off to Russia or North Korea if they think socialism/communism is so bloody wonder and leave us to it.

Kermit.de.frog · 12-09-2018 8:52pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

In what way is it deluded?

It's private property.

Here is what angers me about this for those on the moral horse - it's fine to be on that high horse so long as your rights are not being infringed.

But there is very short distance between the state telling others what to do with their own property and that happening to you some day.

Then you will have a different attitude completely.

If you want communism or Venezuelan socialism just say it. It's not a crime.

But don't try and dress it up as if your suggestions are something different to that or don't quite go that far or whatever.

Hurrache · 12-09-2018 8:52pm

Makes no sense whatsoever inconveniencing the ordinary wurker as many of those involved in politics supporting such protests would say.

Why not picket and block the county council and other local government offices, places in which people work who can actually make a difference?

Let's see the socialists support that, inconvenience themselves and their colleagues, or is it too much hassle for the protestors to get a bus out to Tallaght, Swords, Blanchardstown and so on?

Yer Da sells Avon · 12-09-2018 8:53pm

prinzeugen wrote: »

Oh great. The "Shame, shame, shame on you" rent a mob is back is back in action with their so called peaceful protests.

I wish they would feck off to Russia or North Korea if they think socialism/communism is so bloody wonder and leave us to it.

Frankly, I wish all the landlords' bootlickers would fuck off to... I dunno, anywhere, frankly.

McMurphy · 12-09-2018 8:53pm

10000maniacs wrote: »

Again, it is none of your business how the house is used. Lefties drooling over other peoples property. Quite sickening. Earn your own money.

Been thinking of maybe turning my grannys old tenement gaff into a knockin shop.

She can move in with us for a while so as I can cash up for a while.

If the next door neighbours whinge I'll tell them to mind their own business so.

This time next year Rodders......

Yer Da sells Avon · 12-09-2018 8:56pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's private property.

Here is what angers me about this for those on the moral horse - it's fine to be on that high horse so long as your rights are not being infringed.

But there is very short distance between the state telling others what to do with their own property and that happening to you some day.

Then you will have a different attitude completely.

If you want communism or Venezuelan socialism just say it. It's not a crime.

But don't try and dress it up as if your suggestions are something different to that or don't quite go that far or whatever.

You're too obtuse (I'll be kind and assume it's just willful obtuseness anyway) to acknowledge the fact that it is already the case that you cannot do whatever you want with private property.

Kermit.de.frog · 12-09-2018 8:56pm

Hurrache wrote: »

Makes no sense whatsoever inconveniencing the ordinary wurker as many of those involved in politics supporting such protests would say.

Why not picket and block the county council and other local government offices, places in which people work who can actually make a difference?

Let's see the socialists support that, inconvenience themselves and their colleagues, or is it too much hassle for the protestors to get a bid out to Tallaght, Swords, Blanchardstown and so on?

I wonder how many of them have jobs because most people don't have the time to be 24/7 protesters.

weldoninhio · 12-09-2018 8:56pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

"More or less at the behest of the building owner".... in other words, you don't know, and AGS are refusing to comment who employed the unknown heavy enforcers.

Perhaps the Gards just coincidentally arrived at the same time as the heavies arrived, the two just had a chance meeting upon the street of an early Autumn evening?

This is After Hours I know, where anything can happen, the place where people will turn a blind eye to potential skullduggery taking place by people in unmarked vans with missing reg at the front, UK reg at the back right under the Gards noses, because you know they where there to uphold the law.

Yet at the same time I think this forum would go into meltdown if there was a thread opened that centred on a clapped out van with missing UK registered plates that happened to be driven by a member of a certain minority group. ......

So as I have already said, it's a bit rich to preach that the Gards were there to facilitate this gang of masked men, who if acting in a security capacity, one would expect to be obliged to wear some kind of identification, let alone be driving a vehicle that complied with our road traffic laws.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would have thought these same folk would expect to see the law of the land applied to each party, impartiality being assumed obviously?

The eviction team would have rang the Gardaí ahead of time to let them know when they were going to begin eviction proceedings. The Gardaí would have assessed the potential for any trouble starting, they would have taken into account the fact that the crusties were already ignoring a court order and likely to resist. The Gardaí may not know who employed the eviction team, or if they are even employed, it could be family members or friends of the owner. That is not the Gardai’s concern.

There is no obligation for them to wear ID as explained earlier in the thread. The vehicle did comply with our road traffic laws, as explained by AGS spokesperson in the Irish Times.

Could you explain what law the eviction team broke?

12-09-2018 8:57pm

Noveight wrote: »

For the most part they've no focking choice!

Sitting on your arse on O'Connell street at rush hour of a Wednesday won't put food on the table nor a school uniform on a young lad.

Well I'm afraid I'll see you back here for the Celtic Tiger sequels 3,4,5 & 6 then..... If you think nothing can be done about it then that's what will happen... nothing.

Hurrache · 12-09-2018 8:57pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Been thinking of maybe turning my grannys old tenement gaff into a knockin shop.

She can move in with us for a while so as I can cash up for a while.

If the next door neighbours whinge I'll tell them to mind their own business so.

This time next year Rodders......

Big difference, what you're proposing is facilitating an illegal activity.

cursai · 12-09-2018 8:58pm

2A29C62300000578-3148193-Dangerous_Children_in_the_Philippines_are_risking_their_lives_to-a-11_1435912665033.jpg

Oh the horror. If only these wasters went on holidays to other places except Majorca to kick each others heads in like ferrel dogs, they might have some perspective on things.

Brock Turnpike · 12-09-2018 9:00pm

Crusties! Huh!
What are they good for?
Absolutely nothing
Sing it again...

Crusties! Huh!

end of the road · 12-09-2018 9:00pm

steves2 wrote: »

if you want a free house, you shouldn't get to pick where it is.

there are no free houses. there are subsidized houses, and those who need them don't ultimately get to pick where they get them in practice as it stands. they may do on paper, and that's a non-issue.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Don't these people have jobs? It's a Wednesday evening...

yes, i believe a lot of them likely do have jobs. it's not just the jobless that protest.
i'd imagine their jobs are finished for the day, or their shift isn't until later. you could go in to the protest and ask them i'm sure, if you really want to know the answer?

Franz Von Peppercorn · 12-09-2018 9:01pm

These Pints Are Savage wrote: »

Because I do not like the idea of government forcing me to do something with my property that I have bought with my money. Your comparison does not work.

Why don't you lefties move to Venezuela? I hear it's great over there, everyone is a multi millionaire these days!

The comparison works exactly because it was about planning permission. Which stops people doing things with their property.

Anyway the housing situation needs to be solved one way or t’other.

prinzeugen · 12-09-2018 9:02pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Frankly, I wish all the landlords' bootlickers would fuck off to... I dunno, anywhere, frankly.

Is that just landlords or does it include anyone that owns private property?

20Cent · 12-09-2018 9:02pm

Vacant properties devalue the houses around them, are bad for neighbourhoods and are a waste of space. If they can't afford to make it habitable enough the let out then sell it. Should be a big tax on vacant buildings so they either get used or sold to someone who will use it.

McMurphy · 12-09-2018 9:02pm

Gotta laugh at the folk proclaiming private property rights this and constitution that now in the face of protest against the govt.

A few years ago I remember the very same people laughing at people who were proclaiming their private property rights/the constitution etc when FG were introducing the HHC and LPT taxes......

Can't decide which group to call game keeper and which group are poachers, the arguments gone full circle.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 12-09-2018 9:04pm

10000maniacs wrote: »

Again, it is none of your business how the house is used. Lefties drooling over other peoples property. Quite sickening. Earnyour own money.

Funny enough rent isnt considered earned income.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unearned_income

And of course most renters work.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 12-09-2018 9:06pm

These Pints Are Savage wrote: »

Doesn't work at all. If I want to change my property then yes I have to get planning permission. If I live in a listed building I can't change it one bit. If I don't want to do anything I don't need permission and I don't have to worry about the Commissar coming to seize it. Feels good to live in a free country.

In both cases you are not free to do what you like with your property.

12-09-2018 9:06pm

These Pints Are Savage wrote: »

Doesn't work at all. If I want to change my property then yes I have to get planning permission. If I live in a listed building I can't change it one bit. If I don't want to do anything I don't need permission and I don't have to worry about the Commissar coming to seize it. Feels good to live in a free country.

Are you deliberately not seeing the point, yeah?

The proposal is that "doing nothing with it" (ie not living in it, and allowing it to fall derelict) should be one ot the things that are added to the list of things that require permission from a Local Authority.

Do you get that or not?

10000maniacs · 12-09-2018 9:08pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Been thinking of maybe turning my grannys old tenement gaff into a knockin shop.

She can move in with us for a while so as I can cash up for a while.

If the next door neighbours whinge I'll tell them to mind their own business so.

This time next year Rodders......

I'd much prefer living next to that than a squat full of lager swilling pay for nothing lefties urinating their dole away in my front garden because they can't afford a plumber.

Galwayguy35 · 12-09-2018 9:09pm

Phoebas wrote: »

I see Paul Murphy TD has called the Gardai who were on duty tonight terrorists.

I'd say he's been missing the limelight.

Well his megaphone has been gathering dust since the water charges were abolished.

"Peaceful Protest"

_brendand_ · 12-09-2018 9:11pm

These Pints Are Savage wrote: »

Doesn't work at all. If I want to change my property then yes I have to get planning permission. If I live in a listed building I can't change it one bit. If I don't want to do anything I don't need permission and I don't have to worry about the Commissar coming to seize it. Feels good to live in a free country.

So the principle you're stating is that there's a difference between *not allowing someone to do something* and *forcing them to do something*. I think the lines between the two start to get blurred pretty rapidly though, don't you? How about tax? Is it being forced to pay money to the government or is it not being allowed to not pay the money?

We should also establish the difference between what is legal and what is right/good. These are not and never have been the same thing, and everyone knows that so don't even pretend otherwise. Something that is illegal can be justifiable and even good and something that is wrong can be perfectly legal.

Kermit.de.frog · 12-09-2018 9:11pm

end of the road wrote: »

yes, i believe a lot of them likely do have jobs. it's not just the jobless that e protest and ask them i'm sure, if you really want to know the answer?

My humble opinion (not fact because I don't know for sure), my impression is that most of them

a: don't have jobs
b: live at home with parents

I could be totally wrong about that.

Most people I know around that age work part time or full time and some would be sympathetic - but none would have the time.

For Forks Sake · 12-09-2018 9:13pm

Never ceases to amaze me that some of those who shout the loudest attended schools where a years tuition fees would nearly cover a years rent ; Paul Murphy (St. Killians €5150 p/a and Institute of Education €7295 p/a), Richard Boyd-Barrett (St Michaels €5500) and Republican Harry Potter, Eoin O'Broin (Blackrock, €6900 p/a). Real friend of the working man and woman :rolleyes:

Gimme A Pound · 12-09-2018 9:15pm

I see the bullsh1t memes have started: one featuring a painting of impoverished tenants in 19th century rural Ireland being turfed out of their home, with no rights, no protections, no resources, no supports, brutal colonial power over them... side by side with a photo of the police and balaclava'd guys (why is that such a big deal? Oh yeah, it's not - but you gotta find outrage where you can!) from last night... as if they're comparable. Because the squatters who chose to break into and illegally occupy someone else's private property are OF COURSE just like the actual tenants who got evicted in the 19th century. :rolleyes:

How can they complain about dishonesty from Trump supporters etc and then pull that kind of sh1t? The hypocrisy is galling.

dxhound2005 · 12-09-2018 9:17pm

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me that some of those who shout the loudest attended schools where a years tuition fees would nearly cover a years rent ; Paul Murphy (St. Killians €5150 p/a and Institute of Education €7295 p/a), Richard Boyd-Barrett (St Michaels €5500) and Republican Harry Potter, Eoin O'Broin (Blackrock, €6900 p/a). Real friend of the working man and woman :rolleyes:

You could have also included Mary Lou.

20Cent · 12-09-2018 9:18pm

Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »

I see the bullsh1t memes have started: one featuring a painting of impoverished tenants in 19th century rural Ireland being turfed out of their home, with no rights, no protections, no resources, no supports, brutal colonial power over them... side by side with a photo of the police and balaclava'd guys (why is that such a big deal? Oh yeah, it's not - but you gotta find outrage where you can!) from last night... as if they're comparable. Because the squatters who chose to break into and illegally occupy someone else's private property are OF COURSE just like the actual tenants who got evicted in the 19th century. :rolleyes:

How can they complain about dishonesty from Trump supporters etc and then pull that kind of sh1t? The hypocrisy is galling.

Memes aren't supposed to be taken literally.

Noveight · 12-09-2018 9:18pm

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Republican Harry Potter, Eoin O'Broin (Blackrock, €6900 p/a).

The most slappable face in Ireland.

The Frederick St protest and reaction

Comments