The Frederick St protest and reaction

Yer Da sells Avon · 14-09-2018 12:43am

Jeff2 wrote: »

If you own that property then it's up to you surely what do with it.
Is this not a democracy.

Ever heard of the concept of planning permission? Preventing you from doing whatever you, as an individual, choose with your own property - should it be detrimental to the community as a whole - is not undemocratic. You might think it's a breach of your rights (after all, you own the property), but those rights are not sacrosanct. If they were, I'd buy a field and build a house in it, without bothering to get planning permission.

cursai · 14-09-2018 12:47am

There's no 'housing crisis'. Jaysus will ye stop letting yourselves be walked like dogs and get on with dealing with better issues. Come on now!

jimmycrackcorm · 14-09-2018 12:59am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

You guys seem so obsessed with the private schools that a small number of activists attended, whilst defending the elephant in the room ... the huge value of the residential property, a stone's throw from the city's main thoroughfare, which lies idle.

As I watch miserable commuters slog it through stop start traffic every morning, I'm perplexed by why activists think it's right to turn city centre properties into social housing for some scroungers paid for by those people commuting.

Yer Da sells Avon · 14-09-2018 1:00am

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

As I watch miserable commuters slog it through stop start traffic every morning, I'm perplexed by why activists think it's right to turn city centre properties into social housing for some scroungers paid for by those people commuting.

Why can social housing not be for working people?

14-09-2018 1:02am

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Who’s in poverty in this country.

Go on, I’m all ears.

The consistent poverty rate is 8.3% of the population according to the 2016 CSO stats. That's about 394,000 people.

CSO stands for Central Statistics Office btw, not the Communist Socialist Organisation......

the_syco · 14-09-2018 1:16am

seamus wrote: »

If you're in an RPZ with a vacant property, you should be paying a penalty for that vacancy.

Does that include offices?

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Can you empathise with people who would be angry at someone deliberately leaving a property vacant in the middle of a city experiencing a huge housing shortage and a homelessness crisis?

No, I can't empathise with people who are angry that an office building is empty.

The owner of the current protest location, 41 Belvedere Place, as been trying to change it into accommodation since they bought it. Refused once, and when they finally get planning permission to make it into liveable apartments, people squat in it.

Arghus · 14-09-2018 1:39am

cursai wrote: »

There's no 'housing crisis'. Jaysus will ye stop letting yourselves be walked like dogs and get on with dealing with better issues. Come on now!

I don't know how you can fail to acknowledge that there's something rotten going on in the country regarding housing.

People are too fixated on the background of the people who are protesting, but securing semi-decent accommodation for non extortionate rent is becoming harder and harder for people from all walks of life throughout the country. You must live in some bubble if you don't think this is the reality of Ireland these days.

I live in Galway and I've had to move three times in the last year, because the rental accommodation I lived in was sold on and I was out on my arse. I lived in one spot for three years and always paid everything on time and never gave the landlord a single issue and agreed to rent increases well beyond what was supposedly legally allowed, but it made no difference in the end.

In the second instance the property I was living in was part of a bloc of property - basically all the twenty or so houses on a street - that was sold en masse to a developer and everyone on the street, which included families with children, was issued with notice and that was it. And, yeah, that's the law of the land and there isn't much you can do about it, but a lot of people were left high and dry and I'm sure many of them still haven't found places to live because there's simply not enough property to go around, supposedly. I say supposedly because I pass where I used to live every day and many months later it's still empty and unoccupied - as are many other properties on the street. The new owners are sitting on these properties letting their value accumulate as former good and reliable tenants are still scrambling around trying to find bed and board. And hey, that's the way the system works, tough titty right? Maybe, but I sure don't think it's a very fair system. And stories like mine are prevlant and growing in number. And I've never been on the dole or attended a protest about housing.

the_syco · 14-09-2018 2:08am

Arghus wrote: »

I live in Galway and I've had to move three times in the last year, because the rental accommodation I lived in was sold on and I was out on my arse. I lived in one spot for three years and always paid everything on time and never gave the landlord a single issue and agreed to rent increases well beyond what was supposedly legally allowed, but it made no difference in the end.

Because of the governments meddling with the rent market, trying to be seen to be giving tenants more rights, landlords are leaving it because they're seeing how other landlords are being screwed over.

Some people think it's great that amateur landlords are leaving the market, without realising that there is no-one there to now supply rental properties that are needed.

Arghus · 14-09-2018 2:18am

the_syco wrote: »

Because of the governments meddling with the rent market, trying to be seen to be giving tenants more rights, landlords are leaving it because they're seeing how other landlords are being screwed over.

Some people think it's great that amateur landlords are leaving the market, without realising that there is no-one there to now supply rental properties that are needed.

Maybe things aren't too great for the amateur landlord these days, but I'd still rather be one of them than a struggling tenant.

I spent months house hunting during the summer and I must have talked to close to fifty or sixty landlords and all of them were charging damn high rent and not apologising for it and would be quick to tell you that there was plenty of others willing to go beyond the asking price if you didn't hand them hard cash there and then and a depressing amount of them owned poor quality properties that, to my eyes, looked like they were going to make a killing off for close to zero effort. And they'd all tell you how hard it was to be a landlord - even if you'd been sleeping on someone's couch for the last month.

14-09-2018 2:27am

agreeing with all of that

but you agree the clowns occupying houses and blocking traffic help nothing and are idiots, right?

the_syco · 14-09-2018 3:00am

Arghus wrote: »

all of them were charging damn high rent

As landlords are not legally allowed to refuse HAP, I've noticed that most landlords are now charging more than the HAP cap.

The next time you are house hunting, bring proof of employment for yourself, and whoever you'll be renting with, and show that you and whoever else will be living with you are employed full time for the past number of years.

Arghus · 14-09-2018 3:10am

Deleted User wrote: »

agreeing with all of that

but you agree the clowns occupying houses and blocking traffic help nothing and are idiots, right?

I don't know really. I think the fundamental function of occupying houses and all that goes with is basically to get attention, because whether you like it or not it it does get people talking about the issues, at least at some level. People scoff at terms like "raising awareness", but it is a real thing - anyone who follows the news in Ireland over the last fortnight could not have avoided coverage about the housing crisis and some of that is definitely down to the protests.

If nothing else, it generates a lot of media coverage - look at how massive this thread as become in the last few days - and it does have a knock-on effect: politicians have to start talking about it and while maybe nothing happens in some ways, the pressure builds until it becomes a political issue that can't be ignored any more. And while I think issues regarding housing have many different route causes and solutions and won't be fixed easily, quickly or cheaply at least now it's the elephant in the room that the state can't kick down the road any longer. It'll be a massive issue at the next election, partly because of people making noise about it - which is how politics works.

So, maybe, yeah, I don't agree with everything to do with people squatting in houses, but I think perhaps the ends can justify the means somewhat. I don't really give a sht who is doing the protesting or whether they work or not, because at the end of the day they are talking about something which is real. People should listen to the message, not the messenger, but that's always lost. Especially around here.

I also don't know if people wan't something to be done, what other actions are they supposed to take really? People can't afford places to live and have less security of tenure than ever - and, as it stands, the law thinks largely that's a-okay. And the political parties generally didn't spend too much time talking about housing in crisis terms until about two years ago - even though it's been a real thing for about five years now. At some point you've got to rage against the machine a bit, otherwise no-one will listen.

Arghus · 14-09-2018 3:11am

the_syco wrote: »

As landlords are not legally allowed to refuse HAP, I've noticed that most landlords are now charging more than the HAP cap.

The next time you are house hunting, bring proof of employment for yourself, and whoever you'll be renting with, and show that you and whoever else will be living with you are employed full time for the past number of years.

Proof of employment was one of those essential bits of paper, along with a few others, that I brought everywhere. If you're out there grinding day in day out trying to find a decent place to live, you get pretty wise after a while to how to present your best case.

Landlords may not be legally allowed to refuse HAP but I always got the impression that they wouldn't be handing over too many keys to people in receipt of it, whatever their legal obligations were or not. Most of them - if not all - were charging eye watering rent because they knew they could, not because of any cap.

end of the road · 14-09-2018 3:25am

Deleted User wrote: »

agreeing with all of that

but you agree the clowns occupying houses and blocking traffic help nothing and are idiots, right?

i don't agree they help nothing. they help keep this issue in the public eye. people have had enough of being screwed, it's as simple as that.

14-09-2018 5:37am

arghus- i find it hard to believe you ever considered housing to have been out of the public eye or not at the front tier of issues politicians knew to be absolutely critical. i dont think stunts like these raise an already-massive issue's profile one iota.

but these stunts do distract attention from the actual issues, to the method and the source of the stunt. if anything, this thread proves that, not that the stunt has worked to improve the situation in any constructive way.

we've had, in the main, two sides arguing here: one supports anything anti-government/capitalist, the other imo takes a more practical view.

but if the methods used hadnt been so c*ntish and the majority of ppl (think the thread bears it out that this is the majority opinion, but feel free to disagree) didnt think from previous experience that those involved were c*nts, then if the question was "is the government doing enough about housing?" or "do you agree there is a housing crisis?" the vast majority would agree the answers

the problem is there are a wide range of complex inputs into that crisis, and most ppl are aware that not all are within the power of a govt to change, simply because fixing the system quickly for one set of people would royally f*ck another large bloc, and the govt hasnt a clear enough vote advantage to lose any large voting bloc in one showy move.

landlords
homeowners not paying their debt
homeowners struggling with mortgage but paying
homeowners making their payments comfortably or with mortgage paid (NOBODY talks about these guys anymore!)
private renters struggling to pay rent but happy renting
private renters struggling to pay rent and save a deposit
renters due to inherit, someday
HAP renters subsidised heavily by the state and waiting for permanent housing
the cohort who feel everyone else should be paying for their 4ever home hun
those housed in hotels and hostels on an emergency basis with no actual alternatives
those housed in hotels and hostels on an emergency basis because they are playing the system and the media to jump ahead of everyone else
the actual homeless
the banking system and everyone reliant on it functioning in our economy
the taxpayer

look, take your pick.

but everyone who wants the housing crisis solved, only wants it solved *for them*.

which will come at the expense of at least several of the other cohorts.

which means blocking traffic, breaking into other people's property, turning up with photographers and your kids at a garda station, etc etc etc is sh1tty, entitled and childish behaviour because the majority of people understand the above situation to be one where these stunts do not help anything, and in fact merely screw over everyone else.

which is why its galling to have the support-every-self-appointed-victim/martyr crew on here as usual flinging the "im alright, jack" line at everyone else.

very few people are alright, jack. but the majority are doing their bit to help themselves and the country, and there's many political students in mao jackets in this thread who think thats worth only a sneer- their heroes have megaphones and dreams baby, and f*ck the working stiff if he dont like it, eh?

the_syco · 14-09-2018 6:30am

Arghus wrote: »

Most of them - if not all - were charging eye watering rent because they knew they could, not because of any cap.

How was it like the last time you went looking for a house? And when was that?

Wheeliebin30 · 14-09-2018 8:50am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The consistent poverty rate is 8.3% of the population according to the 2016 CSO stats. That's about 394,000 people.

CSO stands for Central Statistics Office btw, not the Communist Socialist Organisation......

Is this the one where of you can’t afford to go for a meal out every two weeks or can’t afford a new couch every year you’re in poverty?

I wonder what these people spend their money on instead, wouldn’t be smokes drink or gambling of course, oh I’m not allowed say that blah blah.

Give it over ffs.

weldoninhio · 14-09-2018 8:53am

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Ever heard of the concept of planning permission? Preventing you from doing whatever you, as an individual, choose with your own property - should it be detrimental to the community as a whole - is not undemocratic. You might think it's a breach of your rights (after all, you own the property), but those rights are not sacrosanct. If they were, I'd buy a field and build a house in it, without bothering to get planning permission.

You mean like the planning permission that was pending on the first house the crusties occupied in Summerhill?? Or the planning permission that had just been approved for the house in Frederick Street?? Or the planning permission that was recently granted on the new place the crusties have occupied??

Perhaps you should explain the concept of planning permission to the crusties, you seem to be well clued in on it.

Graces7 · 14-09-2018 8:55am

A toddle through daft ie will prove this. Ask for rentals throughout Ireland under E600.

the_syco wrote: »

As landlords are not legally allowed to refuse HAP, I've noticed that most landlords are now charging more than the HAP cap.

The next time you are house hunting, bring proof of employment for yourself, and whoever you'll be renting with, and show that you and whoever else will be living with you are employed full time for the past number of years.

weldoninhio · 14-09-2018 8:58am

Graces7 wrote: »

A toddle through daft ie will prove this. Ask for rentals throughout Ireland under E600.

Did just that, there are 6 pages of properties.

PlaneSpeeking · 14-09-2018 9:17am

end of the road wrote: »

i don't agree they help nothing. they help keep this issue in the public eye. people have had enough of being screwed, it's as simple as that.

Oh you really are priceless!!!!!!

WE the taxpaying f**king masses are the ones tired of being screwed - not the workshy class.

Jesus f**king wept.

The Caveman · 14-09-2018 9:19am

Hi, I have been following this story from afar, and are not to up to date with all the details. But please correct me if I am wrong

Protestors enter a house and occupy it illegally. They broke the law.

The high court orders them to leave, and they ignore it. Again, sure there is some law that was broken by ignoring a high court order.

The Gardi/Police/Security whatever they were, came to remove them.

Now, all the focus is on the van not having tax, they wore balaclavas, etc, but nobody is complaining about the protestors breaking the law first.

If they did not ignore the high court order, this would not have happened?

But, let's blame the Gardi for doing their job.

Now I know some people will come on here and justify what they did, to highlight their cause. But why can you/they pick and choose what laws are to be broken?

I supported them until they ignored the court order.

Lau2976 · 14-09-2018 9:24am

The Caveman wrote: »

Hi, I have been following this story from afar, and are not to up to date with all the details. But please correct me if I am wrong

Protestors enter a house and occupy it illegally. They broke the law.

The high court orders them to leave, and they ignore it. Again, sure there is some law that was broken by ignoring a high court order.

The Gardi/Police/Security whatever they were, came to remove them.

Now, all the focus is on the van not having tax, they wore balaclavas, etc, but nobody is complaining about the protestors breaking the law first.

If they did not ignore the high court order, this would not have happened?

But, let's blame the Gardi for doing their job.

Now I know some people will come on here and justify what they did, to highlight their cause. But why can you/they pick and choose what laws are to be broken?

I supported them until they ignored the court order.

I think for a lot of people, at least those I’ve spoken to about it, it isn’t about supporting their cause necessarily and more about the handling of the whole thing by the Gardai.

There was already widespread disagreement with the new Gardai commissioner (again this is among the people I’ve spoken to) and then adding this is compounding the distrust people now have in the Gardai.

14-09-2018 9:26am

Lau2976 wrote: »

I think for a lot of people, at least those I’ve spoken to about it, it isn’t about supporting their cause necessarily and more about the handling of the whole thing by the Gardai.

There was already widespread disagreement with the new Gardai commissioner (again this is among the people I’ve spoken to) and then adding this is compounding the distrust people now have in the Gardai.

thing about "the people youve spoken to" is that its a self-selecting group innit

storker · 14-09-2018 9:30am

The Caveman wrote: »

I supported them until they ignored the court order.

I would be inclined to support them even after ignoring the court order. Civil disobedience is a good way to get attention, particularly for a government that appears to see the housing crisis as a PR problem.

Of course, I don't condemn their eviction either - they are breaking the law after all - and while the balaclavas do look a bit OTT, I can't really blame the guards on the spot for having concerns about victimisation.

PlaneSpeeking · 14-09-2018 9:31am

storker wrote: »

I would be inclined to support them even after ignoring the court order. .

So you support criminals.

RWCNT · 14-09-2018 9:34am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

So you support criminals.

reductive
rɪˈdʌktɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
tending to present a subject or problem in a simplified form, especially one viewed as crude.
"such a conclusion by itself would be reductive"

ohnonotgmail · 14-09-2018 9:36am

storker wrote: »

I would be inclined to support them even after ignoring the court order. Civil disobedience is a good way to get attention, particularly for a government that appears to see the housing crisis as a PR problem.

Of course, I don't condemn their eviction either - they are breaking the law after all - and while the balaclavas do look a bit OTT, I can't really blame the guards on the spot for having concerns about victimisation.

So what about the owner of the building, the one who had to pay court costs plus the cost of hiring private security to effect the removal of the protestors? I dont think i've heard anybody even mention them except to portray them in a negative light. what did the owner do to deserve these costs and the associated hassle?

ohnonotgmail · 14-09-2018 9:36am

RWCNT wrote: »

reductive
rɪˈdʌktɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
tending to present a subject or problem in a simplified form, especially one viewed as crude.
"such a conclusion by itself would be reductive"

They support people who ignored a court order. how else would you describe it?

McMurphy · 14-09-2018 9:37am

Esel wrote: »

The private agents should wear this type of balaclava, so members of the public won't confuse them with Garda

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balaclava_3_hole_black.jpg

The pictures I seen, some were wearing those paramilitary style balaclava.

irishproduce · 14-09-2018 9:39am

I tell you what, I am after reading some pr piece from civil liberties this morn.
Who would actually want to be a Garda, seriously.
You have two or three bodies looking over your shoulder, all attempting to justify their existence and pandering to any form of outcry or perceived offence. You are walking on egg shells for fear of offending someone. You have to tip toe and molly coddle protestors who are shouting abuse, breaking the law or in some cases, throwing racial slurs at you.
Then you have politicians who should be defending you, but who instead are more interested in looking over their shoulder at the hard left who get airtime and condemn any form of police activity at a protest.
All this of course while you basically put your life on the line every day to uphold law and order so the general citizenry can go about their lives without fear.

The job seems completely gone to shít and every day on the beat is jumping hurdles, ducking and diving so as not to draw the attention of any one of the numerous actors who are looking to hang you out.

dav3 · 14-09-2018 9:41am

A new report issued today backs up the concerns people have about the Gardaí. Especially the public order unit/riot squad, which has never has never been held in high regard.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0914/993656-report-iccl-gardai/

It says the garda policing of public protest remains "shrouded in secrecy" and that gardaí seem to use pepper spray much more than other police services, such as the PSNI and Metropolitan Police.

The report says what it calls the "mindset" of An Garda Síochána must change and that gardaí must accept the need for reform and embrace fully the adoption of a human rights-based approach.

Hopefully this will bring about change within the Gardaí.

ohnonotgmail · 14-09-2018 9:43am

dav3 wrote: »

A new report issued today backs up the concerns people have about the Gardaí. Especially the public order unit/riot squad, which has never has never been held in high regard.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0914/993656-report-iccl-gardai/

Hopefully this will bring about change within the Gardaí.

any chance for some change in the people who were verbally and physically abusing the gardai?

RWCNT · 14-09-2018 9:43am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They support people who ignored a court order. how else would you describe it?

I'd imagine the poster feels that the occupiers are not in the wrong morally even if they are so legally. So yes, while they do "support criminals" in this case, it's likely they're making a special exception in these circumstances. Making "So you support criminals??" a reductive statement. Tons of activism over the course of history has involved breaking the law.

Doctor Jimbob · 14-09-2018 9:45am

The Caveman wrote: »

Hi, I have been following this story from afar, and are not to up to date with all the details. But please correct me if I am wrong

Protestors enter a house and occupy it illegally. They broke the law.

The high court orders them to leave, and they ignore it. Again, sure there is some law that was broken by ignoring a high court order.

The Gardi/Police/Security whatever they were, came to remove them.

Now, all the focus is on the van not having tax, they wore balaclavas, etc, but nobody is complaining about the protestors breaking the law first.

If they did not ignore the high court order, this would not have happened?

But, let's blame the Gardi for doing their job.

Now I know some people will come on here and justify what they did, to highlight their cause. But why can you/they pick and choose what laws are to be broken?

I supported them until they ignored the court order.

You're doing exactly the same thing when you imply the lack of tax and so on is somehow excused by the fact the protesters broke the law first.

ohnonotgmail · 14-09-2018 9:46am

RWCNT wrote: »

I'd imagine the poster feels that the occupiers are not in the wrong morally even if they are so legally. So yes, while they do "support criminals" in this case, it's likely they're making a special exception in these circumstances. Making "So you support criminals??" a reductive statement. Tons of activism over the course of history has involved breaking the law.

they can make all the special exemptions in their own head that they like but that doesn't change what happened.

PlaneSpeeking · 14-09-2018 9:51am

RWCNT wrote: »

reductive
rɪˈdʌktɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
tending to present a subject or problem in a simplified form, especially one viewed as crude.
"such a conclusion by itself would be reductive"

Want to make a point or just show off you can Google ?

Wheeliebin30 · 14-09-2018 9:53am

irishproduce wrote: »

I tell you what, I am after reading some pr piece from civil liberties this morn.
Who would actually want to be a Garda, seriously.
You have two or three bodies looking over your shoulder, all attempting to justify their existence and pandering to any form of outcry or perceived offence. You are walking on egg shells for fear of offending someone. You have to tip toe and molly coddle protestors who are shouting abuse, breaking the law or in some cases, throwing racial slurs at you.
Then you have politicians who should be defending you, but who instead are more interested in looking over their shoulder at the hard left who get airtime and condemn any form of police activity at a protest.
All this of course while you basically put your life on the line every day to uphold law and order so the general citizenry can go about their lives without fear.

The job seems completely gone to shít and every day on the beat is jumping hurdles, ducking and diving so as not to draw the attention of any one of the numerous actors who are looking to hang you out.

Totally agree tds saying they are elected to break the law.

No wonder it’s all failing apart, dangerous times.

suicide_circus · 14-09-2018 9:53am

dav3 wrote: »

A new report issued today backs up the concerns people have about the GardaEspecially the public order unit/riot squad, which has never has never been held in high regard.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0914/993656-report-iccl-gardai/

Hopefully this will bring about change within the Garda

Civil liberties quango finds issues with civil liberties just before budget time shocker

RWCNT · 14-09-2018 9:55am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they can make all the special exemptions in their own head that they like but that doesn't change what happened.

Yes, people can choose "in their own head" to support people despite the fact that they have broken the law. Isn't every choice made in someone's head?

Yes, it doesn't change what happened, did someone suggest that it did?

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Want to make a point or just show off you can Google ?

I was obviously pointing out that your question was reductive. That's my point.

ohnonotgmail · 14-09-2018 9:57am

RWCNT wrote: »

Yes, people can choose "in their own head" to support people despite the fact that they have broken the law. Isn't every choice made in someone's head?

Yes, it doesn't change what happened, did someone suggest that it did?

so the poster is supporting criminals then or have i misunderstood your post?

RWCNT · 14-09-2018 10:05am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so the poster is supporting criminals then or have i misunderstood your post?

I think so, yes. So what? They provided a justification for doing so in that civil disobedience is a good way to garner attention and this government seems to view the housing crisis as a PR issue. Civil disobedience has also been a part of activism going back yonks. You can't seem to move past this reductive "So you support criminals?" line of questioning. What is the objective of asking such a question?

ohnonotgmail · 14-09-2018 10:06am

RWCNT wrote: »

I think so, yes. So what? They provided a justification for doing so in that civil disobedience is a good way to garner attention and this government seems to view the housing crisis as a PR issue. Civil disobedience has also been a part of activism going back yonks. You can't seem to move past this reductive "So you support criminals?" line of questioning. Why is the objective of asking such a reductive question?

It wasnt a question. it was a statement of fact.

RWCNT · 14-09-2018 10:08am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It wasnt a question. it was a statement of fact.

Right-o. "So you support criminals?" isn't a question. Dunno what that funny thing at the end of the sentence is but fair enough.

Even if it is a statement of fact, so what? Their reasoning for doing so has been explained, which you've yet to engage with at all.

weldoninhio · 14-09-2018 10:09am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're doing exactly the same thing when you imply the lack of tax and so on is somehow excused by the fact the protesters broke the law first.

As stated many times throughout this thread and in every national newspaper I have read. The Gardai have stated that the van was fully taxed and insured. Can we stop waffling on with this misinformation??

weldoninhio · 14-09-2018 10:10am

RWCNT wrote: »

Right-o. "So you support criminals?" isn't a question. Dunno what that funny thing at the end of the sentence is but fair enough.

Perhaps google "rhetorical question"

Doctor Jimbob · 14-09-2018 10:13am

weldoninhio wrote: »

As stated many times throughout this thread and in every national newspaper I have read. The Gardai have stated that the van was fully taxed and insured. Can we stop waffling on with this misinformation??

I've seen claims it was and claims that it wasn't. If there's proof that it was then fair enough, but a claim from the Gardai isn't inherently more valid than a claim from anyone else.

Edit: And even if it was taxed, I was responding to a poster under the impression that it wasn't, so my initial point stands.

RWCNT · 14-09-2018 10:18am

weldoninhio wrote: »

Perhaps google "rhetorical question"

Haha, I'm well aware the question was rhetorical, I'm just teasing. Even as a statement of fact it still contributes not a blop to this conversation though.

weldoninhio · 14-09-2018 10:25am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I've seen claims it was and claims that it wasn't. If there's proof that it was then fair enough, but a claim from the Gardai isn't inherently more valid than a claim from anyone else.

Edit: And even if it was taxed, I was responding to a poster under the impression that it wasn't, so my initial point stands.

A statement from the Gardai (who i'm sure can access the relevant info) carries a lot more weight than comments from the rent-a-yobs (who think shouting the loudest = proof)

yourdeadwright · 14-09-2018 10:43am

weldoninhio wrote: »

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I've seen claims it was and claims that it wasn't. If there's proof that it was then fair enough, but a claim from the Gardai isn't inherently more valid than a claim from anyone else.

Edit: And even if it was taxed, I was responding to a poster under the impression that it wasn't, so my initial point stands.

A statement from the Gardai (who i'm sure can access the relevant info) carries a lot more weight than comments from the rent-a-yobs (who think shouting the loudest = proof)

Like the thousands of berth test they Garda told us they took ,
Why in the world would you believe what the Garda say without evidence
Anyone can use the website online , you just enter the reg and it clearly shows it was last taxed in 2014 , but no no the Garda are telling the truth,

The Frederick St protest and reaction

Comments