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

The Frederick St protest and reaction

13567…82

Comments

  • #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »
    Occupation of someone else's private property (it's really not ok to do that in any context - and yet there seems to be this view that they were entitled to do it) doesn't seem like a way of starting to effect change at state level.

    'In any context' ???? What does that mean?


  • #63
    Yer Da sells Avon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭Yer Da sells Avon


    Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »
    It's bizarre that supporting the police force is problematic.

    I'll tell you what's problematic: Members of the police force obscuring their faces and removing their numbers while assisting men in balaclavas in the removal of peaceful protesters from a vacant property. That's problematic.
    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    So if I buy a property with my own money I am not allowed leave it empty if I want to?

    Last I checked this was not the Soviet Union.

    Last time I checked, if you buy a property with your own money, there are lots of things that you aren't allowed to do with it, without first seeking permission. Deliberately leaving it empty during a housing crisis should be one of those things.


  • #64
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    Some people prefer the idea of Ireland being like a Dickensian hole of a place - to the point that they'll make up stuff.

    There is a shortage of accommodation - I don't believe the 10,000 figure for a second but I'd say there are more than 110 homeless. Sleeping rough is not the only definition of homelessness - people not having a permanent home and having to sleep in shelters and on couches qualifies as homeless also.

    But I don't get how the government could be entirely responsible for the accommodation crisis - there was a recession, this is affecting countries all over the world.


  • #65
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,616 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »
    Yes you are - that's what their problem is!

    I think it is pretty bad form to leave a property idle, but it is the person's own private property too, so I can see both views. I don't get why they do it though - they'd make money from letting it.
    Keepng it idle it reduces the supply for that area, forcing prices up, so they can make more money from selling it later without any of the effort of renting it


  • #66
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,433 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »
    Deliberately leaving it empty during a housing crisis should be one of those things.

    It would be my property.

    What does it have to do with you?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    17-pdr wrote: »
    'In any context' ???? What does that mean?
    It means... "in any context". :confused:

    One question mark will do.

    It is not ok to occupy someone else's property without permission in any context - whether they are a landlord that owns a string of property, or anyone else.

    Bizarre.


  • #68
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,433 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    riffmongous wrote: »
    Keepng it idle it reduces the supply for that area, forcing prices up, so they can make more money from selling it later without any of the effort of renting it


    It's private property. Nothing to do with anyone else.


  • #69
    Ha Long Bay
    Registered Users Posts: 14,333 ✭✭✭✭Ha Long Bay


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    It would be my property.

    What does it have to do with you?

    Its like saying if you buy a bicycle you have to ride it once a week or else you hand it over to someone who wants a bike.


  • #70
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »
    I'll tell you what's problematic: Members of the police force obscuring their faces and removing their numbers while assisting men in balaclavas in the removal of peaceful protesters from a vacant property. That's problematic.
    Ok but there is just no need for the snarky "cop lovers" comment. I support the guards - they have a difficult job and they're grossly under-resourced and often unfairly maligned by people who haven't got a clue. Obviously it goes without saying that I don't support any bad apples.


  • #71
    Yer Da sells Avon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭Yer Da sells Avon


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    It would be my property.

    What does it have to do with you?

    If your next-door-neighbour wants to build a ten-storey extension onto their house and turn it into a nightclub, what does it have to do with you?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Wheety
    Registered Users Posts: 5,510 ✭✭✭Wheety


    Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »
    the young man who gave up his life in Tiananmen Square...

    That famous pic? Yeah the protester wasn't killed. You know the tank didn't run over him?

    Seems to be one of those things that everyone thinks happened.


  • #73
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »
    It means... "in any context". :confused:

    One question mark will do.

    It is not ok to occupy someone else's property without permission in any context - whether they are a landlord that owns a string of property, or anyone else.

    Bizarre.


    A by the book remark if there ever was one. I sense a #metoo type movement for property owners may gain critical mass...... :pac:


  • #74
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,433 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »
    If your next-door-neighbour wants to build a ten-storey extension onto their house and turn it into a nightclub, what does it have to do with you?

    That's not effecting the right of ownership of something I would have paid for.

    Again - that would be my property, so what business is it of yours whether it's empty or not?


  • #75
    Yer Da sells Avon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭Yer Da sells Avon


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    That's not effecting the right of ownership of something I would have paid for.

    Again - that would be my property, so what business is it of yours whether it's empty or not?

    What business is it of yours whether they build a ten-storey extension or not?


  • #76
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    Wheety wrote: »
    That famous pic? Yeah the protester wasn't killed. You know the tank didn't run over him?

    Seems to be one of those things that everyone thinks happened.
    Yep, meant "risked his life"! And it was a heck of a risk in fairness!
    17-pdr wrote: »
    A by the book remark if there ever was one. I sense a #metoo type movement for property owners may gain critical mass...... :pac:
    Huh? Do let me know what is wrong with saying it is not ok for anyone to illegally occupy anyone else's private property, no matter who.


  • #77
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,433 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Maybe the government should CPO Paul Murphy's house, or better still take it off him for no payment.

    I'm sure he will have no issue.


  • #78
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,616 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    It's private property. Nothing to do with anyone else.
    May be fine out in a wasteland or something but we live in a society with other people.


  • #79
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    Because their faces would be plastered all over Facebook by morons claiming this and that.

    Don’t blame them, they have families to protect too.

    I really, really hate the idea of 'faceless' police or whatnot, f*cking hate it. But this is unfortunately also very true these days and an absolute shame.


  • #80
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,433 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »
    What business is it of yours whether they build a ten-storey extension or not?

    Don't want to answer the question?

    I'll answer it for you.

    It is none of your business what I do in relation to the ownership of property I would own anymore than it's my business to interfere with your rights of ownership.

    That's the market. Suck it up.


  • #81
    Yer Da sells Avon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭Yer Da sells Avon


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Don't want to answer the question?

    I'll answer it for you.

    It is none of your business what I do in relation to the ownership of property I would own anymore than it's my business to interfere with your rights of ownership.

    That's the market. Suck it up.

    Such obtuseness.

    Is it none of your business if your neighbour decides to change the usage of their house for commercial purposes - i.e. turn it into a pub? Should you just suck it up because it's not your business to interfere with their rights of ownership?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »
    Yep, meant "risked his life"! And it was a heck of a risk in fairness!

    Huh? Do let me know what is wrong with saying it is not ok for anyone to illegally occupy anyone else's private property, no matter who.

    'No matter who'. F**k me, the 'I'm alright Jack' tradition is alive & well. Anyone with a string of vacant properties should be hit with a escalating year by year type of property tax to force them into committing them into the buyer or rental market. Something akin to an vacant site tax. The sympathy for these types of non-contributory individuals is really quite something.


  • #83
    Ha Long Bay
    Registered Users Posts: 14,333 ✭✭✭✭Ha Long Bay


    17-pdr wrote: »
    'No matter who'. F**k me, the 'I'm alright Jack' tradition is alive & well. Anyone with a string of vacant properties should be hit with a escalating year by year type of property tax to force them into committing them into the buyer or rental market. Something akin to an vacant site tax. The sympathy for these types of non-contributory individuals is really quite something.

    If you look up irony in the future you will find this quote.


  • #84
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    17-pdr wrote: »
    'No matter who'. F**k me, the 'I'm alright Jack' tradition is alive & well. Anyone with a string of vacant properties should be hit with a escalating year by year type of property tax to force them into committing them into the buyer or rental market. Something akin to an vacant site tax. The sympathy for these types of non-contributory individuals is really quite something.
    You're reading stuff into what I'm saying that is not my sentiment at all. It's very dishonest of you.

    Breaking and entering a private property and occupying it is not right. Or at least if a person agrees with breaking and entering the property of certain people, they have no grounds for viewing it as unreasonable for the guards to remove them - it is an offence whether you like it or not, and people seem to be saying that they weren't doing anything wrong, and that the guards were unreasonable to remove them... again, very dishonest.

    As for all the other **** you just added apropos nothing, I disagree with property owners leaving units vacant (already said that, but sher go on a rant anyway) and don't have sympathy for them. But people cannot expect anything other than garda reprisal if they just break into a private property and settle there, or at least they can't be pretending that they have been wronged when they know exactly what they were doing.


  • #85
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    john4321 wrote: »
    If you look up irony in the future you will find this quote.

    Nah, I'd be thinking of definitions outside the box when it comes to what non-contributory means......


  • #86
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭mynamejeff


    Billy86 wrote: »
    I really, really hate the idea of 'faceless' police or whatnot, f*cking hate it. But this is unfortunately also very true these days and an absolute shame.

    how do you feel about people trying to intimidate your police to punish them for doing their jobs.

    during the water protests i know of one Garda who coaches a under age gaa team. He was present during a protest in darndale . a group of these same people showed up at a game a few week later to abuse him and disrupt the kids game,

    your right it is a regrettable situation but unless we deal with these people directly and firmly the situation will deteriorate .

    As for the situation in Frederick street a group of people trespassed on private property and refused to leave. there was court cases and court orders were giving. they were also given more than fair warning.
    you cant just take some one else property off them with out consequences.
    And the gardai are in the most simple term the consequences of reckless stupid and childish actions,
    What the gardai did was planned legal and used the least force required to effect a lawful result


  • #87
    Ha Long Bay
    Registered Users Posts: 14,333 ✭✭✭✭Ha Long Bay


    17-pdr wrote: »
    Nah, I'd be thinking of definitions outside the box when it comes to what non-contributory means......

    Like what though? Im not here for an argument just a discussion but when I see members of parties that support illegal occupation and look at their solutions I have to wonder do they have ideas. For example PBP http://www.pbp.ie/there-is-a-solution-to-the-housing-crisis/


  • #88
    Bertser
    Registered Users Posts: 633 ✭✭✭Bertser


    The law matters when it's protesters occupying a vacant property but not when it's heavies arriving in a car with no reg, tax or insurance. Doing the latter gets you assistance from the guards of all people

    Dm1ag42X0AA3A73.jpg


  • #89
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    john4321 wrote: »
    Like what though? Im not here for an argument just a discussion but when I see members of parties that support illegal occupation and look at their solutions I have to wonder do they have ideas. For example PBP http://www.pbp.ie/there-is-a-solution-to-the-housing-crisis/

    Individuals and/or companies sitting on vacant land banks and/or with vacant properties in under pressure urban areas need to be 'encouraged' by use of our taxation system to do the right thing for the greater good.


  • #90
    Ha Long Bay
    Registered Users Posts: 14,333 ✭✭✭✭Ha Long Bay


    Bertser wrote: »
    The law matters when it's protesters occupying a vacant property but not when it's heavies arriving in a car with no reg, tax or insurance. Doing the latter gets you assistance from the guards of all people

    Dm1ag42X0AA3A73.jpg



    Are you sure thats not the protestor's van?


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »
    I'll tell you what's problematic: Members of the police force obscuring their faces and removing their numbers while assisting men in balaclavas in the removal of peaceful protesters from a vacant property. That's problematic.

    Last time I checked, if you buy a property with your own money, there are lots of things that you aren't allowed to do with it, without first seeking permission. Deliberately leaving it empty during a housing crisis should be one of those things.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108057478&postcount=16

    At least one 'D' district number on view in that post ?

    Deliberately leaving a house empty should be criminalized ?.....that word should is the important one,are you certain that this particular building is residential to begin with ?

    What about if a building is accidentally left empty,as in somebody goes away on holidays,only to find Paul Murphy TD,and his chums have moved in on your return.

    This particular group certainly left their mark on the building in question,but I suppose Deputy Murphy will return later with a sweeping brush.


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



Advertisement