The Frederick St protest and reaction

McMurphy · 14-09-2018 7:02pm

BBFAN wrote: »

The more time you say crusties the cooler you are. :rolleyes:

This is all I can think of each time I read it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccaOoRQTekg

tayto lover · 14-09-2018 7:04pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

And this will have come about due to this issue being brought to your attention from those that protested.

The protesters might call their protest a success if more people do likewise.

I have been saying this since the poor unfortunates died on the streets in the cold snaps over the last number of years. Empty council houses is just wrong and reflects badly on those who allow the situations to exist.

Seathrun66 · 14-09-2018 7:14pm

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Every Garda in that footage as visible numbers as far as I can see. Can you give a timestamp for the one that doesn't?

Footage in the last 15 seconds. No visible numbers on several Gardai. Precautionary on their part. But utterly in contravention of their code of practice.

BBFAN · 14-09-2018 7:16pm

The people on here who say property owners have every right to do what they want with their properties, I'm interested:

1. Would you be happy if every house on your block was boarded up and left empty for years?
2. Would you be happy if 30 people moved into one house next door to you?

If you wouldn't be happy with that then what would you do about it? Just put up with it because it's someone else's property so they're entitled to do whatever they want with it?

Seathrun66 · 14-09-2018 7:21pm

tayto lover wrote: »

If no criminal offence was being committed then why did the court make the order?
My bet is that the judge didn't agree with you.

A misunderstanding of legal proceedings here. Judges make orders for a variety of circumstances where possibly no criminal offences have taken place (search warrants, seizure of documents, etc). There may or may not be criminal offences at play here but the judge's order is not relevant to that.

davo10 · 14-09-2018 7:27pm

BBFAN wrote: »

The people on here who say property owners have every right to do what they want with their properties, I'm interested:

1. Would you be happy if every house on your block was boarded up and left empty for years?
2. Would you be happy if 30 people moved into one house next door to you?

If you wouldn't be happy with that then what would you do about it? Just put up with it because it's someone else's property so they're entitled to do whatever they want with it?

Every house on that street is not boarded up.

When those properties are redeveloped, its highly unlikely they will be social housing or low cost rentals. The muppets who occupied them have possibly ensured the landlord will get planning for the property and it will come to market with high cost rental units. If I was the owner, I'd be putting in planning for a couple of apartments now, the council would be wary of refusing it in case the owner publicises that planning was refused even though he tried to make it available for rent.

30 people can move into a property if the property has planning for enough rental units to accommodate them.

14-09-2018 7:35pm

tayto lover wrote: »

There are loads of council houses boarded up...
I counted 18 in about a half-hour drive around Dundalk

Louth County Council have admitted that they're financially broke, though, and don't have anything left in their housing budget.

BBFAN · 14-09-2018 7:41pm

davo10 wrote: »

Every house on that street is not boarded up.

When those properties are redeveloped, its highly unlikely they will be social housing or low cost rentals. The muppets who occupied them have possibly ensured the landlord will get planning for the property and it will come to market with high cost rental units. If I was the owner, I'd be putting in planning for a couple of apartments now, the council would be wary of refusing it in case the owner publicises that planning was refused even though he tried to make it available for rent.

30 people can move into a property if the property has planning for enough rental units to accommodate them.

So, no answer to my question then?

14-09-2018 7:48pm

tayto lover wrote: »

I have been saying this since the poor unfortunates died on the streets in the cold snaps over the last number of years.

Not saying this against you personally, but they're always 'poor unfortunates' when they die in doorways.

So long as they have the misfortune to have breath in their lungs, they're often considered scum, junkies, bums, and so on.

What exactly is the difference between the average person on the homeless list, and the rough sleeper, except that the latter typically refuses to take an offer of accommodation?

davo10 · 14-09-2018 7:48pm

BBFAN wrote: »

So, no answer to my question then?

Are all the houses on that street boarded up? No.

If 30 people were occupying a house next door illegally, I would hope the gardai and the owner would turf them out on their holes.

There's your answer.

14-09-2018 7:57pm

NasserShammaz wrote: »

Go back under your bridge 17yr old :rolleyes:

The geese appreciation society are getting terribly rude these days.....

Turner · 14-09-2018 7:59pm

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Every Garda in that footage as visible numbers as far as I can see. Can you give a timestamp for the one that doesn't?

Footage in the last 15 seconds. No visible numbers on several Gardai. Precautionary on their part. But utterly in contravention of their code of practice.

These sh1tebag "peaceful protestors" are already identifying members of this Garda Public Order unit on social media, even posting where they eat their lunch on their break from work.

What next? Protest outside the homes of the Gardai?

Protest outside where their children go to school?

The government and the new Garda commissioner need to grow a pair and protect our front line services from these parasites.

end of the road · 14-09-2018 8:01pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Why though?
Why do you think people need to show their face?

for the protection of the protesters. we can't have masked unidentifiable hoodies roming around with the backing of hard to identify gardai. it's not how a democratic state works.

the_syco wrote: »

Everyone involved was masked to prevent future intimidation by the crusties.

The crusties are demanding that everyones identities are released, so that the crusties can harass them.

their reasons for being masked aren't valid. if wearing the balaclava, the gardai involved are required to wear a helmet on top of the balaclava as the equipment as a whole works to protect them from either dangerous substances or other. the equipment isn't for protecting identity. the hoodies on the other hand had no valid reason to be masked given they were there as part of a legitimate act of law enforcement. i don't care why exactly the protesters may want to know their identity, i care that by hiding their identity there is the potential that should an incident have happened via these individuals, it could be impossible to bring a prosecution against them.

BBFAN · 14-09-2018 8:08pm

davo10 wrote: »

Are all the houses on that street boarded up? No.

If 30 people were occupying a house next door illegally, I would hope the gardai and the owner would turf them out on their holes.

There's your answer.

Nope, that's not the question I asked.

end of the road · 14-09-2018 8:10pm

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I thought the main issue was housing for the homeless.

it is, but hoodies with no identity being given backing by the gardai is also a main issue.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

In what way would it have enhanced protection? It certainly wouldn't have given them any protection.

it would have insured that had the hoodies done anything they shouldn't, they would be identifiable for prosecution. i'm not bothered about the hoodies protection, because as they are there acting in an enforcement capacity, they should be identifiable.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

As has been pointed out, the scene commander can tell them what to wear. What difference do you think it would have made for them to be wearing their helmets?

it would have made a huge difference, because the helmet and balaclava together is apparently the required gear, and by wearing it we could be genuinely confident that they may have felt there was a genuine potential threat.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Nonsense. The same people will always find some ridiculous claim to level at Gardaí with zero evidence.

then the gardai have nothing to worry about. as there is no evidence for the allegations made against them by protesters, then the allegations would be found to be untrue.

tayto lover · 14-09-2018 8:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Louth County Council have admitted that they're financially broke, though, and don't have anything left in their housing budget.

From what I'm told most of them only need a lick of paint and the gas/electricity re-connected. A couple of weeks rent would cover it.

Turner · 14-09-2018 8:15pm

end of the road wrote: »

i don't care why exactly the protesters may want to know their identity

They are in the process of identifying members of the public urder unit working that day on an anonymous facebook account. Even posting where one member eats his lunch.

One garda has been followed already this year and sprayed with acid while travelling home.

So I can see and care why these Gardai would want to hide their identity.

davo10 · 14-09-2018 8:15pm

BBFAN wrote: »

Nope, that's not the question I asked.

Are your questions relevant to this thread considering that all the houses are not boarded up and the 30 people next door were doing so in spite of a court order?

I know this is AH, but if you are trying to make a point, at least make it relevant to the theme of the thread.

tayto lover · 14-09-2018 8:16pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Not saying this against you personally, but they're always 'poor unfortunates' when they die in doorways.

So long as they have the misfortune to have breath in their lungs, they're often considered scum, junkies, bums, and so on.

What exactly is the difference between the average person on the homeless list, and the rough sleeper, except that the latter typically refuses to take an offer of accommodation?

I have worked with these people in the past. In my opinion many are addicts or in recovery and a high percentage have mental health issues.
Even if housed they would need help from several agencies and follow up. Regardless of that nobody should suffer exclusion for being sick. My wife helps in a Soup Kitchen and she says the numbers are on the increase so the problem has to be addressed.

weldoninhio · 14-09-2018 8:18pm

BBFAN wrote: »

Nope, that's not the question I asked.

If all the houses on my street were properly boarded up, why would I care? Peace and quiet.

If 30 people moved in next door, again why would I care. Once they kept quiet I couldn’t care less how many or how few people live there.

BBFAN · 14-09-2018 8:20pm

davo10 wrote: »

Are your questions relevant to this thread considering that all the houses are not boarded up and the 30 people next door were doing so in spite of a court order?

I know this is AH, but if you are trying to make a point, at least make it relevant to the theme of the thread.

My questions are very relevant, you're simply trying to avoid answering them.

I don't know what you don't understand about the point I'm trying to make.

The point is those who argue that property owners have the right to do whatever they want with their property are wrong and if it was the property next door to you then you'd quickly change your point of view.

gctest50 · 14-09-2018 8:33pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Not saying this against you personally, but they're always 'poor unfortunates' when they die in doorways.
............

like the Apollo house chef ?

[utl]https://www.thesun.ie/news/1489621/homeless-man-found-dead-in-dublin-city-centre-was-convicted-paedophile-who-wilfully-passed-hiv-to-a-woman/[/url]

fxotoole · 14-09-2018 8:35pm

Samsong wrote: »

It's time to get rid of bloated public sector pensions and put the money towards the country and its infrastructure

No. It’s really not.

14-09-2018 8:38pm

tayto lover wrote: »

I have worked with these people in the past. In my opinion many are addicts or in recovery and a high percentage have mental health issues.

This isn't a competition, but for what it's worth, i've also worked with homeless services. Plenty of people in the community have addiction issues and mental health problems; in my experience, what separates the homeless from everybody else, is an absence of personal and family support.

McMurphy · 14-09-2018 8:40pm

Turner wrote: »

They are in the process of identifying members of the public urder unit working that day on an anonymous facebook account. Even posting where one member eats his lunch.

Curious as to how they're identifying them, seeing as they were masked?

One garda has been followed already this year and sprayed with acid while travelling home.

So I can see and care why these Gardai would want to hide their identity.

If this is true, it's a thundering disgrace no two ways about it. Is there any link to the story available so i could read a bit more about it?

As said countless times on the thread already, the optics of the other nights shenanigans weren't good, one would have thought that someone from the higher echelons of the force might have used a bit more discretion, what with how some of the Garda/local communities relationships were strained during the water meter rows, and then the Paul Murphy/attempted stitch up in court thing.

They certainly could do with looking about changing their PR strategies.

davo10 · 14-09-2018 8:41pm

BBFAN wrote: »

My questions are very relevant, you're simply trying to avoid answering them.

I don't know what you don't understand about the point I'm trying to make.

The point is those who argue that property owners have the right to do whatever they want with their property are wrong and if it was the property next door to you then you'd quickly change your point of view.

Can you please link to the law that states that a property owner has to redevelop an empty property and make it habitable?

Property owners have a right to do whatever they want to do with their property as long as it is legal.

mynamejeff · 14-09-2018 8:42pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Curious as to how they're identifying them, seeing as they were masked?

If this is true, it's a thundering disgrace no two ways about it. Is there any link to the story available so i could read a bit more about it?

As said countless times on the thread already, the optics of the other nights shenanigans weren't good, one would have thought that someone from the higher echelons of the force might have used a bit more discretion, what with how some of the Garda/local communities relationships were strained during the water meter rows, and then the Paul Murphy/attempted stitch up in court thing.

They certainly could do with looking about changing their PR strategies.

http://www.thejournal.ie/garda-acid-attack-followed-4150780-Jul2018/

tayto lover · 14-09-2018 8:44pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This isn't a competition, but for what it's worth, i've also worked with homeless services. Plenty of people in the community have addiction issues and mental health problems; in my experience, what separates the homeless from everybody else, is an absence of personal and family support.

Exactly, hence my mention of follow-up services even when eventually housed.

BBFAN · 14-09-2018 8:44pm

davo10 wrote: »

Can you please link to the law that states that a property owner has to redevelop an empty property and make it habitable?

Property owners have a right to do whatever they want to do with their property as long as it is legal.

Can you please answer the question?

14-09-2018 8:51pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Exactly, hence my mention of follow-up services even when eventually housed.

Yep, my biggest bugbear with a lot of the social-media movements in support of housing, is that they seem to believe homelessness will be solved by having one roof for every member of the homeless population.

Anybody who's ever had anything to do with a homeless person must roll their eyes at that notion.

BBFAN · 14-09-2018 8:54pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yep, my biggest bugbear with a lot of the social-media movements in support of housing, is that they seem to believe homelessness will be solved by having one roof for every member of the homeless population.

Anybody who's ever had anything to do with a homeless person must roll their eyes at that notion.

I get your point but even the experts now do say that Home First is the way to go, it's hard for someone to go through detox or rehab and then come out and have to go back to staying in hostels where drugs and drink are the norm.

McMurphy · 14-09-2018 8:55pm

mynamejeff wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/garda-acid-attack-followed-4150780-Jul2018/

Firstly, that's a disgrace and I hope the bastards that done that get caught and given the maximum penalty applicable to their disgusting crime.

However, that story is about a Lithuanian heroin gang involved in serious organised crime.

The way the above post was constructed, I mistakenly thought that it was implying protesters (of some sort) followed a guard home and sprayed acid on him.

Not saying it was deliberately misleading, but it was misleading none the less.

One of the dangers of being a guard I suppose, the job can be dangerous enough without putting themselves into stupid situations like the Frederick street incident where even the Taoiseach is questioning whether or not the balaclavas could have been perceived was appropriate or not .

14-09-2018 9:00pm

BBFAN wrote: »

I get your point but even the experts now do say that Home First is the way to go, it's hard for someone to go through detox or rehab and then come out and have to go back to staying in hostels where drugs and drink are the norm.

Anyone who thinks that personal home ownership is a solution for someone experiencing detox, is talking through their arse.

Rehab is the place to detox, and there are similar facilities for people coming out of detox.

Independent living is a question that arises way, way after that. I guarantee you, nobody who knows the first thing about addiction will say otherwise.

davo10 · 14-09-2018 9:04pm

BBFAN wrote: »

Can you please answer the question?

What question?

Property owners have a right to do whatever they want with their property as long as it is legal.

Here's a question for you, is the Frederick property owner doing anything illegal by not developing the property?

mynamejeff · 14-09-2018 9:43pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Firstly, that's a disgrace and I hope the bastards that done that get caught and given the maximum penalty applicable to their disgusting crime.

However, that story is about a Lithuanian heroin gang involved in serious organised crime.

The way the above post was constructed, I mistakenly thought that it was implying protesters (of some sort) followed a guard home and sprayed acid on him.

Not saying it was deliberately misleading, but it was misleading none the less.

One of the dangers of being a guard I suppose, the job can be dangerous enough without putting themselves into stupid situations like the Frederick street incident where even the Taoiseach is questioning whether or not the balaclavas could have been perceived was appropriate or not .

i dont think any one said that these specific people used acid but they are going to great lengths to identify and intimidate gardai , .

fairy sure you cant link facebook pages but search saoirse keane. who predictable when to he school of hard knocks and you ll see how she is encouraging people to attack individual gardai.

as for thier involvement in this incident they were present to assist in the enforcement of a lawful court order against people who had ignored at least one previous court order ,

and i dont think either side has any faith in leo for law enforcement advice

14-09-2018 9:48pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Louth County Council have admitted that they're financially broke, though, and don't have anything left in their housing budget.

For the crack I looked up what Louth are doing with the LPT in 2017.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/argus/news/local-property-tax-to-remain-unchanged-36144103.html

"Cllr Marianne Butler of the Green Party proposed that they increase it by 15 per cent, which would raise €1.59million which she wanted ring fenced for social housing."

"Director of Housing Mr Joe McGuinness said that if Cllr Butler's proposal was carried, there would be no constraints on the council in regards to taking people off the housing list."

Result: They did not increase it and are doing their best to try to cut it back. :pac::rolleyes:

Wheeliebin30 · 14-09-2018 9:52pm

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

For the crack I looked up what Louth are doing with the LPT in 2017.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/argus/news/local-property-tax-to-remain-unchanged-36144103.html

"Cllr Marianne Butler of the Green Party proposed that they increase it by 15 per cent, which would raise €1.59million which she wanted ring fenced for social housing."

"Director of Housing Mr Joe McGuinness said that if Cllr Butler's proposal was carried, there would be no constraints on the council in regards to taking people off the housing list."

Result: They did not increase it and are doing their best to try to cut it back. :pac::rolleyes:

The councils are proving to be utterly useless.

tayto lover · 14-09-2018 10:01pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

The councils are proving to be utterly useless.

SF have the majority of councillors in my area.
I'll be asking them why they are neglecting the homeless by allowing the empty council houses remain idle. Can't be that hard to paint them or very costly. They are losing rental income too.

BBFAN · 14-09-2018 10:04pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that personal home ownership is a solution for someone experiencing detox, is talking through their arse.

Rehab is the place to detox, and there are similar facilities for people coming out of detox.

Independent living is a question that arises way, way after that. I guarantee you, nobody who knows the first thing about addiction will say otherwise.

Wrong on all counts there Tyrant, I normally like your posts but you're just coming across as an arrogant asshole now.

I've experienced both alcohol and drug addiction personally and would never have made it to recovery without a home to go to. I said AFTER rehab, you obviously didn't read my post.

Also, Home First is a professional initiative. Are those professionals also speaking through their arses?

BBFAN · 14-09-2018 10:06pm

davo10 wrote: »

What question?

Property owners have a right to do whatever they want with their property as long as it is legal.

Here's a question for you, is the Frederick property owner doing anything illegal by not developing the property?

Okay, for the third time, since you can't be bother to read it:

1. Would you be happy if every house on your block was boarded up?
2. If not, what would you do about it?

I won't answer any further questions until you answer mine. Answering a question with a question is simply a deflection technique when you're caught out.

14-09-2018 10:11pm

tayto lover wrote: »

SF have the majority of councillors in my area.
I'll be asking them why they are neglecting the homeless by allowing the empty council houses remain idle. Can't be that hard to paint them or very costly. They are losing rental income too.

They wanted maximum tax cuts in Louth.

Its probably a good bit more than just a lick of paint that one needs if its boarded up.

If its cold it could get damp, 20k might not go too far with a refurb.

davo10 · 14-09-2018 10:38pm

BBFAN wrote: »

Okay, for the third time, since you can't be bother to read it:

1. Would you be happy if every house on your block was boarded up?
2. If not, what would you do about it?

I won't answer any further questions until you answer mine. Answering a question with a question is simply a deflection technique when you're caught out.

What has that question got to do with this thread?

I'm answering your question with this question because, to point out the obvious, this thread has to do with the occupation of a property in Dublin where the street is not full of boarded up properties.

I'm beginning to see the calibre of the muppets occupying the property if this is your thought process. It's nonsense.

BBFAN · 14-09-2018 10:49pm

davo10 wrote: »

What has that question got to do with this thread?

I'm answering your question with this question because, to point out the obvious, this thread has to do with the occupation of a property in Dublin where the street is not full of boarded up properties.

I'm beginning to see the calibre of the muppets occupying the property if this is your thought process. It's nonsense.

No answer so, fine.

davo10 · 14-09-2018 10:57pm

BBFAN wrote: »

No answer so, fine.

You will have to think about it. The answer is there, you just may not understand it.

14-09-2018 11:08pm

end of the road wrote: »

for the protection of the protesters. we can't have masked unidentifiable hoodies roming around with the backing of hard to identify gardai. it's not how a democratic state works.

their reasons for being masked aren't valid. if wearing the balaclava, the gardai involved are required to wear a helmet on top of the balaclava as the equipment as a whole works to protect them from either dangerous substances or other. the equipment isn't for protecting identity. the hoodies on the other hand had no valid reason to be masked given they were there as part of a legitimate act of law enforcement. i don't care why exactly the protesters may want to know their identity, i care that by hiding their identity there is the potential that should an incident have happened via these individuals, it could be impossible to bring a prosecution against them.

Well thankfully we live in a country where the government cannot dictate to any of us what we should of shouldn't wear.
There's no law at all to force people to show their face in public.
It makes no difference to the safety of protestors or not. None at all.

Galwayguy35 · 14-09-2018 11:15pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't think so...

Criminal trespass is, that requires criminal damage to property; I'm not aware of any trespassing crime in itself.

So how did they get in to the premises?

One would imagine the door was locked so they had to force it to gain entry which would have been damage to the owners property.

McMurphy · 14-09-2018 11:20pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Well thankfully we live in a country where the government cannot dictate to any of us what we should of shouldn't wear.
There's no law at all to force people to show their face in public.
It makes no difference to the safety of protestors or not. None at all.

Must nip down the chipper in the nip so

Galwayguy35 · 14-09-2018 11:22pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Peoples energy should now focus on the issue of homelessness.
There are loads of council houses boarded up all around the country.
We should be making representations to our local councillors to have these homes repaired and given to families asap.
I counted 18 in about a half-hour drive around Dundalk yesterday. I will be pestering my councillors to do something about it on MON morning.

Probably a topic for another thread but does anyone ever ask why they were boarded up in the first place?

Here in Galway the reason was the people they were given to wrecked them and stripped anything of value from the house as well.

And its working people who foot the bill to repair the house.

blanch152 · 15-09-2018 12:00am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Must nip down the chipper in the nip so

Please do.

end of the road · 15-09-2018 2:06am

bubblypop wrote: »

Well thankfully we live in a country where the government cannot dictate to any of us what we should of shouldn't wear.
There's no law at all to force people to show their face in public.
It makes no difference to the safety of protestors or not. None at all.

in relation to cases like this i have to disagree. anyone working in any kind of an enforcement capacity should be identifiable in some way.
i'd argue that masked unidentifiable hoodies does make a difference to the safety of protesters on the basis that should those individuals over-stepped the mark, it would likely not be possible for the victim to take a prosecution against the hooded individual or individuals because they wouldn't be able to identify them when required.

The Frederick St protest and reaction

Comments