Screen Shot 2015-03-24 at 02.16.38

Further (NSFW language) shenanigans last night at Grangegorman,

Who fell under the van?

Society fell under the van.

Make of it what you will.

Squatter supporters hurt in Grangegorman stand-off (Irish Times)

(Thanks Oisín Kane)


Grangegorman March 24


Liam Knuj writes:

Grangegorman this morning….all seems peaceful.

Sponsored Link

56 thoughts on “Grangegormanghast

  1. bawbag

    Classic “Garda source” Irish journalism & portrays the events backwards. Those poor bailiffs!

  2. Anomanomanom

    Nobody fell. It’s not very clear but it seems the “protesters” decided to go in front of a moving vehicle. I’m all for wanting to live free of charge in someone else’s property, but don’t damage a poor innocent white van.

    1. munkifisht


      Nobody fell. It’s not very clear but it seems the protesters were in front of vehicle which moved unceasingly into them with no regard for their safety.

      1. Anomanomanom

        Two words….. Personal Responsibility. It’s a little thing most of us know about and follow everyday. You don’t put your self in front of anything that could injury you. Great to see no mention of their freeloading or the fact criminal damage was done to the van.

      2. Waffle

        Of course, if my vehicle was being attacked, I’d persist with moving.

        “But muh safety”

        Stop running in front of moving vehicles man.

  3. Jess

    Remember that time the bailiffs supported by the gardai with no injunction, eviction order or a proper warrant broke into Gorse Hill at 7am?

    1. JollyRoger

      So they should get an injunction! stroll up to the 4 courts, you could have one in less then 24 hours!

    2. ReproBertie

      Grangegorman – squatters being evicted from commercial property
      Gorse Hill – homeowners involved in an ongoing court dispute over debts being evicted from their home

      These are not the same Jess.

      1. Jess

        You’re right they aren’t the same. Grangegorman was a derelict site in a city where rents are increasing 25% in some place that was turned into a home and community area. Gorse hill was a private residence where the people had the option of moving into another mansion.

    1. Jones

      Make sure to bring some plants and some circus paraphernalia. Apparently they allow you to live in someone else’s property

  4. Clampers Outside!

    Hail to the van driver, van driver, van driver
    Hail to the van driver, van driver man
    Did they register for Irish Water?
    The freemen and squatters
    Hail to the van driver, van driver man

    Hail to the van driver, van driver, van driver
    Hail to the van driver, van driver man
    He crushes and squashes
    The freemen and squatters
    Hail to the van driver, van driver man

    …but seriously, this won’t end well.

  5. Dan

    Ownership is not the sole issue here. The property was left to become derelict, junkies had begun using it and local residents would feel nervous walking by. The people who moved in there cleaned up the surrounding area and brought the property to a habitable level. The previous owners didn’t care how their continued neglect of the property effected the surrounding community. People took over that did and for their effort they were beaten and ran over.

    The actions of the hired security and Gardai was deplorable yesterday. They turned up without the required legal documentation, the occupants were given no warning or time to make other arrangements. It’s shortsighted and stupid to ignore the wider context of what happened there.

    The owners were allowed ignore their responsibility to that area through ownership of that property to such an extent that it was detrimental to the lives of those that live there, and now when they decide that there’s a profit opportunity they need only click their fingers and our state police force back up a private hired security company to use violence to evict those who have effectively rectified the mistakes of the owners.

    I don’t think anyone there believed they should be able to stay indefinitely. It’s the manner that this was carried out and the wider implications of what that means for the society that we live in that’s at issue. Reducing the situation to one in which ownership is the only issue, and the failure to respect the community that property is in, effectively excuses any developer or land owner from respecting the safety and rights of those that have to live around a property they are responsible for.

    There are more effective and fairer ways to handle evictions than turning up with steel bars and using intimidation and violence to remove occupants. It’s frightening that our police force facilitated this at the behest of a private company, whilst ignoring the opinions or wishes of people who have to live there every day, people they seemingly serve.

    1. HappyDub

      “It’s frightening that our police force facilitated this at the behest of a private company, whilst ignoring the opinions or wishes of people who have to live there every day, people they seemingly serve.”

      That’s fascism I’m Afraid.

      1. Dan

        No it’s not.

        The Gardai aren’t the bloody Stasi, like. And knee jerk student political name calling and unjustified using of terms like Fascism do not help the debate. It’s dismissive and reductionist.

        The situation is much more complicated than one which you can simpley say ‘Fascism’ and be done with it.

  6. Kolmo

    Large tracts of the city are let go to poo by property speculators with an anti-social attitude as to how the deteriorating aesthetic effects those having to live nearby, beautiful old houses on the North Circular Road, for example, let go to shit, now semi-boarded up shooting galleries, – fair play to those who made an effort to improve their surroundings – the Speculator-Government were sure as shit not going to improve things for anyone. The gardai appear to be nothing but high-class muscle for the puppet masters in this instance (and a few others…)

  7. garthicus

    “The people who moved in there cleaned up the surrounding area and brought the property to a habitable level.”

    So by that logic, I can go to an unoccupied house, sweep the driveway, plant a few flowers and then I can stay there indefinitely ? Sweet.

    1. Dan

      That’s not what I said.

      The property had been left unsecured and allowed to fall into such disrepair that it was having an adverse effect on the quality of life of the people in that community. What I’m saying is the fact that these people took that problem on board and effectively solved it, fixing the mistakes and deplorable lack of civic responsibility of the owners, can’t be ignored.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        “The owners were allowed ignore their responsibility to that area”… is this a fact or an an assumption? You seem to assume that the owners were contacted and had received requests to clean their premises which is the norm. Because that’s what people do with poorly behaved neighbours. Even big yards and buildings like this.
        I bet no one contacted the owners, and these people just moved in and ‘cleaned’ the place. Do you have any evidence of this cleaning? Place looks manky in those pics / video.

        Anyway, that’s one big assumption…. that the owners were contacted. There was an apartment beside me, left empty for nearly a year, I didn’t break in and claim it. What’s the difference, besides the fact the neighbouring apartment had dirty windows…. none really. None at all.

        Yes, there are better ways to evict. But I bet this lot didn’t move when notices were put up and it was brought to this when they refused to leave.

        1. Dan

          And you have evidence of notices being put up? When the security arrived they had no eviction notices, they were only applied for yesterday evening, after the attempted eviction started, which is illegal.

          It’s amazing that after everything that happened in this country people still are so ready to believe that the system has worked within the law. In this case it hasn’t, why is that so hard to believe?

          It’s the owners responsibility to take care of their property. Saying they weren’t contacted is effectively saying it’s not their responsibility. They didn’t care about the property or the community. Ignorance is no defence.

          The issue of ownership is a vast simplification of the situation.

          You should go up there and have a look around. After the security left the occupants invited locals, who had lent a hand in the protest by the way, to come in and look at how they have changed and improved the property. And if we even ignore the property, they have made the area safer by virtue of their presence.

          1. ReproBertie

            Why is it that you care so much about alleged illegality when it comes to the eviction of the squatters and care so little about the illegality when it comes to the occupation of the buildings?

          2. Dan

            @RetroBertie Because I’m considering the illegality of the occupation in the context of the actions of the property owners, occupants and it’s effect on the local community.

          3. ReproBertie

            Whether the squatters put up curtains or smashed all the windows they were sitll there illegally. Now the owners want their propery back, presumably to develop it, so they’ve got to go.

          4. Dan

            I’m not disputing the issue of ownership. I’m saying that the actions of all parties need to be considered when deciding on the correct manner in which to carry out that process. I think what happened yesterday is worrying and has greater implications when considering what type of society we all wish to live in.

          5. neil

            To be fair, eviction notices are required when attempting to legally remove people who had been legally resident in a property (tenants, mortgage holders). If I come home from holidays to find strangers having a rave in my house, I don’t need an eviction notice to kick them out.

          6. Dan

            No, a society wherein civic responsibility is completely ignored when considering the best course of action in a situation such as this, which has a very particular nature.

            I believe that with those rights of ownership come responsibilities. These were not upheld by the property owners. They also never approached the occupants in a peaceful manner to explain the situation and enter into a discussion. Instead they enforced their rights of ownership using a private security firm, backed up by our police force, with absolutely no consideration of the social context of the situation.

          7. ReproBertie

            They were under no obligation to sit down and have a chat with the squatters. The squatters had no rights to be there, even if you think they were nice people.

          8. Clampers Outside!

            No, I have no evidence, because there was none which you point out in the following sentence.

            “Ignorance is no defence” – what has that to do with anything I said… and by the way, if you want to use that arguement, nor is it the defence of those that squat.

            You’re rambling mate.

            There are community development bodies, residents associations, the DCC etc… were all these contacted to put pressure on the owners, again, I doubt it.

            So they gace it a lick of paint and made it look nice inside. So the owner should be allowed to arrive down and say, ‘gee thanks, no I want my building back’.

            Show me dialogue between the community and the owner…. probably is none.

          9. Dan

            Clampers, I mean that ignorance that your property has fallen into ruin and is effecting it’s surroundings is no defence. It’s the property owner’s responsibility to upkeep it and ensure that doesn’t happen.

            By the way the owner was Nama then Ernst &Young. Look at parky mark’ s comments about Hume Street Hospital. Nama was occupied with reducing it’s loan book, nothing else.

            The community may never have contacted the owner. They didn’t need to, the occupants sorted it out.

          10. Dan

            @RetroBertie That’s the situation I’m moaning about, the fact that despite the occupants keeping the responsibilities of the owner, they have no rights. Not even to the extent that they should have a set amount of time to make other arrangements to leave, or not be beaten with steel bars.

          11. Vote Rep #1

            They have no rights because they moved into someone elses property without permission. If someone moved into my house when I was on away, I’d want them out straight away.

        2. parky mark

          It’s generally impossible to contact the owners because they don’t want to be contacted.
          Hume St. hospital was ripped apart by thieves because the owners couldn’t be contacted and NAMA made the decision to do nothing about despite numerous requests.
          These places are assets to business’s, they don’t care about the locality or the people.

  8. Jones

    ‘Violence’ and ‘beatings’ are being thrown around a little bit too easy regarding this. The only aggression I have seen is from those blocking the van’s exit and smashing the windscreen.

    With your logic, because some undesirables moved into the area it is the property owners’ problem? Classic passing the book, blaming someone in a better position for everyone else’s problems. I suppose it’s the property owner’s fault that some of the ‘residents’ have no jobs or drug problems too it it?

      1. Dan

        When you write ‘undesirables’ if you mean the Junkies that moved into the property and area because of the unsecured property, yes, I do believe it’s the owners responsibility. It’s their responsibility to secure their property.

        You have the responsibility to your neighbours not to say, I don’t know, play death metal until 4am every day also.

        If you mean the people that were living in this property when you say ‘undesireables’ you have obviously not spoken to anyone who lives on Grangegorman road. That community welcomed them, they were part of the community. They ran an open artist’s space and communal garden, they made the area a much safer and more pleasant place to live.

        If we compare the actions of the property owner, and the property occupants it’s fairly easy for me to decide which side I’m on.

        As regards beatings and violence, there were, there is absolutely no doubt as to the heavy handed actions of the private security and Gardai, all without holding the required legal documentation to carry out an eviction.

        1. Jones

          Did the owner leave the door open? I doubt it! Did he leave windows open? Again, I doubt it.
          Unsecured? Sounds like just because it wasn’t a challenge to break in you feel it was unsecured.

          Just because somebody broke in doesn’t mean it is open season for another group to move in and claim it as yours.

          Boland’s Mill looks pretty unsecured… might move my stuff in there later. I mean cuz the owner is basically inviting me in. And then I’ll have the last laugh when they try to tell me to move on when the new development plans get under way. Classic Irish entitlement.

          1. Dan

            Irish entitlement!

            Well, Jones, what’s it like being a cliche? Anyway.

            You’re willfully ignoring the issue of how the inaction and neglect of the property owner adversely effected the local community. These people effectively rectified this and made that community a better place to live. I don’t think that can be ignored.

            I’m also not disputing the issue of ownership, which is what you want to fixate on. On a side note, while you defend to the last the rights of the property developer here, you may also like to ruminate on the unsustainable rental levels in Dublin, the homelessness problem and high levels off private debt and negative equity, but we’re getting off the point.

            Along with ownership of property comes responsibilities, remember civics in school? All that rights and responsibilities stuff? That. I’m no far left, no such thing as property red by the way, far from it, but I do believe in a level of fairness and civic responsibility in society.

            The owners of this property have every right under law to develop it. They also had a responsibility to the local community which they failed to uphold, so it was upheld for them. If anything, instead of sending in private security with metal bars, they should have knocked on the door, thanked the occupants for their efforts in the upkeep of the property and tried to come to a agreement on how to take the issue further.

            It seems instead of this approach you’re justifying violence. They should be ‘water cannoned’. Sorry Jones, I’d rather not live in a society where violence is the first resort when dealing with people who have made the city a better place to live.

  9. alex lyons

    so the people living in the warehouse that have spraypainted ACAB and solidarity with/freedom for every obscure country on the planet all over every available wall in the surrounding area are welcome by the community and have made the area safe?

    theres some serious spinning going on here trying to project the 10 or so people living peacefully in the 3 houses (albeit with no legal right) as being the entire situation ignoring the 20 or so other people squatting in the warehouse

  10. Mr. T.

    Just for those who are not clear on this.

    Councils build houses by selling bonds or securing long terms loans on the back of the rent which they will receive from future tenants. They don’t build them and give them away for free and your income taxes don’t pay for them.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link