What’s Going On Here?



Store Street, Dublin

Take Back the City activists, who occupied a house at 34 North Frederick Street and were late this afternoon evicted (top) by a private security company with a large force of gardai in support, protest outside Store Street Garda Station, where six people were being detained after arrests for public order offences.

Take Back The City

Six arrested during protest in Dublin city centre (RTÉ)

Sam Boal/RollingNews


The house at 34 North Frederick Street tonight.


Sponsored Link

130 thoughts on “What’s Going On Here?

    1. Elizabeth Mainwaring

      Don’t be so hysterical, dearie.

      Get back to us when you see a water cannon and some tear gas.

      1. jusayinlike

        Don’t be such a contrarion dearie, hopefully next time they’re banging down your door and dragging your family away in cable ties..

    2. Rugbyfan

      pity the gardai are not along the quays in the morning. more drug dealing going on near the civic offices than I have ever seen before .

  1. Ron

    Disgusting images. There will be riots on the streets to come if this continues. Gemma O Doherty is labelled a looney because she exposes this type of thing. This is orchestrated. It is done with purpose by the filth in Government who support these tactics.

  2. James_Connelly

    The thug face of a jackboot Fine Gael government – sickeningly propped up by Fianna Fail. Ireland 2018.

  3. Daisy Chainsaw

    Must have been some kickbacks going for the gardai to whore themselves out like that. I wonder which one of Poshboy’s and FG’s donors is the slumlord?

  4. Ronan

    Why does everyone get so upset when a blatant disregard for law and order, is met by law and order enforcement.

    Private property ownership has rights, like it or not.
    Unhappy about it? Go vote for socialist and anarchist candidates.
    Unhappy with your options? Stand for office.
    No-one voting for you? That’s democracy.

    I’d be glad to know that this option was available to me if I had militant squatters on my property.

    1. SOQ

      Thatcher once said there was no such thing as a society. She was wrong of course because each one of us engage with it everyday. Even just commuting from home to work requires adhering to a set of social rules. People hoarding property while others are homeless or dying on the streets have broken their social contact and if the government is not prepared to call this sharp practice to account then it is up to the people.

      The goal here is to raise the raise public awareness of this national emergency and direct action is the only way to do it. Then people can and will use their democratic mandate to ensure change. But the optics of this eviction are terrible. If these people are so proud of what they are doing then why did they need to hide their faces? It is an absolute own goal.

      1. Dr_Chimp

        The same way the ‘housing activists’ all wore Leo masks? Great to see some proper law and order being enforced. Unfortunately one form of vigilantism will inevitably lead to another. These are privately owned properties and the owner is under no obligation to assist in solving a homeless crisis. If you want the owner to do something you need to change the incentives. Make it more penal to hoard property and maybe, just maybe, make it more worth their while to rent it.

        1. Cian

          Dr_chimp is correct. These ‘protests’ are a form of vigilantism. And not the ‘legitimate’ type whereby the police aren’t doing their job so the people take the law into their own hands – no, it’s where a group of people have decided to take the law into their own hands. There is a word for this: criminal.

        2. SOQ

          Bullpoo. If the NRA gets permission to build a new road they can place a compulsory purchase order on any property inside a swept path of that road. Private property rights come second to social need and this is no different.

          I used the term sharp practice because that is what property hoarding is. These are empty buildings being left to rot while people are dying in doorways. Unjustifiable in any civilised society.

          1. Dr_Chimp

            The only bullpoo here is the idea that the state should just come along and confiscate lawfully acquired private property willy nilly. That system has been tried, tested and failed over and over again. Taking a dump on an individual’s rights in pursuit of ‘the greater good’ shouldn’t just happen at the stroke of a pen or in the heat of moral outrage by a few. If they come and take your property what else can they do? Part of the definition of what constitutes a civilised society is provision for the protection of property rights…so you mess around with that at your peril

            I don’t think anyone thinks people dying in doorways is ever justifiable. But it does happen, no matter how rich or poor a society is.

          2. Nigel

            And there’s no question that that would be the absolute worst effort at a solution, whereas an overhaul of planning laws and taxation to incetivise development and penalise dereliction should be such a no-brainer you have to assume avoiding such measures is a deliberate policy.

          3. SOQ

            @ chimp. Why are these buildings being left to fall down? You can bet that for the most part it is monetary gain.

            For various reasons compulsory orders on property already happen so why would this be any different? I think that a use it or lose policy would have widespread support myself.

          4. Dr_Chimp

            @ Nigel, I don’t think it’s deliberate policy to keep people homeless and drive up rents/prices for the rest. Why do it? It can’t be just about being in the pockets of banks and landlords.

            @ SOQ, I’ve no doubt that monetary gain plays its part. But at the same time, making monetary gain is not a crime. You can more or less do whatever you want with your property. I agree with your sentiment that a ‘use it or lose it’ policy would have support. I would support it. But I would support it via a disincentive like a tax rather than an outright “we’re just taking your house because we don’t think you’re making the best social use out of it”. However, all you have to do is look at the vacant site levy to see that the state is totally incompetent and under resourced to implement it properly. Do we even know how many vacant properties there are in Dublin?

        3. Dr.Fart MD

          Dr.Chimp .. you say “if you want to do something you need to change the incentives” .. so how do regular citizens do that? It’s politicians who have the power to do that. They have not done it, and show no signs of implementing such policies. So you do the only thing you can do, you make some noise about it. What these people are doing, is just that. They have not damaged the property, or hurt anyone, police have arrived and moved them on. But they’ve done a lot in making this issue more talked about. So why do you, and many others on here, speak negtively of their actions?

          1. Dr_Chimp

            Dr.Fart…you’re right, the government has not done enough and there are many reasons for that, one of which is the over bureaucratic and underfunded mess that is our planning and development system. It is an absolute joke. I fully understand the ‘why’ these people are angry and protesting. But I don’t agree with the method…the mob has arbitrarily decided which properties should be confiscated from private ownership. What if they think that you are being wasteful with your property and that you should be able to fit at least 3 more people in there? what’s to stop them taking over your house until you agree?

            You might think the occupations are simply raising awareness but just look at their list of demands…its soviet style collectivisation. That can’t be the answer to this problem.

      2. Clampers Outside!

        I agree with SOQ, but i also agree with Ronan.

        Protest. Yes.

        Get reefed out of your illegal property occupation. Yes.

        Stop whining about being reefed out, and keep protesting.

        The faux shock over being pulled out of an illegal peoperty occupation is laughable. What did they think was going to happen…? to be asked nicely… its a protest ffs, not a toddlers sit in.

        1. Nigel

          The optics are as stark as they are atrocious. They’d be fairly poor protestors if they didn’t capitalise on it to highlight the priorities of the government.

          1. Harry Molloy

            yeah the optics are shocking. but if I was one of those guards I’d cover my face too, we saw gardai have their names and addresses published all over Facebook during the water protests, they have to protect their families too

          2. Nigel

            I wouldn’t want to be the target of a populist mob, actual or online, just for doing my job, but the anger at the skewed priorities is real and justified.

          3. Clampers Outside!

            No, but you’d happily be part of the mob.

            You are a strong supporter of antifa, so please, put a sock in the idea of not being a mob supporter, you most definitely are and have argued that you are on numerous occasions on here.

          4. Nigel

            Links to my multiple clear, unambiguous and forthright defenses of and expressions of support for antifa, please. Or apologise. Or LOL away home.

          5. Clampers Outside!

            LOL !!!!!!!!

            p*** off with your denial and insistence that I go find the comments.

            You know you have vociferously defended antifa and their violent approach to protest.

            Go away with your demands hypocrite! :)

          6. Nigel

            I shudder to think what deformed and monstrous version of me exists in your head. The upside is that the more horrific it gets, the more gorgeous I become, like a digital Dorian Gray!

          7. Nigel

            a) You are lying.
            b) The Smugglypuffs won the Hogwarts House Cup three years running so feck you, Slytherin-face.

          8. Clampers Outside!

            a) is that accusation the same one when you on a number of occasions ran up and down a thread calling me a liar when you denied calling others Nazis, altrighters and fascists? Remember that, do u remember when i showed you the evidence of your lieng then, eh :) You’re losing again now.

          9. Nigel

            I remember, though judging by your description you do not. I usually apologise when I make a mistake. Now you should too. I have never expressed support for antifa. You are lying. In your defence you are not very bright and tend to reject nuance and complexity for simple-minded belligerence, but in this you are lying.

          10. Clampers Outside!

            I do. I apologized yesterday.

            Next accusation please,refuting is fun.

            I’ll be at a desktop later, if I’ve the time I’ll show you your pro violent t protest support and evidence of your lieng, if you wish, hypocrite.

            Loving your adhom at the end there, you must be desperate, knowing the truth will out you as a total liar.

            “I have never expressed support for antifa” says Nigel… LOL! Lies, damn lies! and hilarity :)

          11. Nigel

            How can you have apologised yesterday for something you did today? Are you invoking time travel?

            Looking forward to it! I expect lots of over-broad interpretation, wildly mistaken inferences, selective deafness to sarcasm and humour, thuddingly stupid reading incomprehension and outright bare-faced lying! I might have a bingo card done up.

            And, dude, you’ve called me a deluded fool so often I don’t even notice any more, it sinks into the rest of the inane performative noise of your LOLs and headdesks. All of this entire exchange is you embarking on an ad hom. I bet readers of this torrid conversation think that I am deliberately trolling you, but this is just how you deal with disagreement.

          12. Clampers Outside!

            I’m sure you’ll find no overboard interpretation on the nazi slur, as the comment linked confirms you are specifically clarifying that that is “actually” what you meant – to call me a Nazi, alt right, fascist, mysoginist etc.
            Funny thing is, in my search, there were a number of other commenters who also understood you to be calling myself and others those things.

            Don’t cry wolf… or accuse others of being a liar, like that, if you want to be believed in future.

          13. Clampers Outside!

            I apologised to someone else for a misunderstanding in another thread. You never said, who I should be apologising too, you only said, I never do, which is bull…

            It’s not an ad hom, it was me operating on the fact that you have previously lied. Like when you said you have never called anyone a fascist or a neo-nazi or an alt-righter, but you have, as you did right here – https://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/08/31/de-thursday-papers-175/#comment-1668446 – when you said “Actually I meant the alt right misogynistic racist neo-fascist lifestyle attached to the arguments you espouse.”

            Then there’s the times you defended antifa, example here – https://www.broadsheet.ie/2017/08/29/de-wednesday-papers-228/#comment-1861189 – saying that they were framed as bogeymen.

            This is the point where I give you an apology.
            I see that ‘defending’ isn’t ‘supporting’ and that the meaning of words is important, as I’ve said many many times before.
            Thusly, I’ll take back my accusation that you lied about supporting antifa; you only have record for defending them on occasion, which is fine, as I too would, as an example, defend their right to speak (only speak, not their violence).

            It was your past form for lying was the reason I made the jump to the conclusion you were again lying, and for that I do apologise, and am sorry for that, Nigel.

          14. Nigel

            Clampers the comment is right there for God’s sake I did NOT say you never apologise I said you should apologise now, on this occasion, ie, to me. Nearly every other instance you cite has a similarly sloppy misreading too tedious to tease out. If you think being of the opinion that antifa are being inflated as a right wing bogeyperson is a defence of antifa as opposed to a critque of the right, fine I won’t argue the point. I assume your reference to me lying in the past has similar characteristics. My comment above holds true for your approach to this.

            Never called you a Nazi though.

            Apology accepted. Someone slap me in the face with a wet kipper if I ever reply to you again.

            10 points for Smugglypuff.

          15. Clampers Outside!

            You’re a typical Lefty Nigel…. demands a standard of others that you are not willing to give yourself.

            So predictable…. I wish you’d prove me wrong, but I doubt it, as double standards appear to be bread and butter to you, me thinks…. pffft!

          16. Clampers Outside!

            You said I espouse an alt right misogynist racist nazi fascist lifestyle. You got them all into one sentence too.

            You do know what ‘espouse’ means? If that is not calling someone a Nazi etc. then you truly have gone full postmodernist in your use of language and the warping of the meaning of words.

            “Never called you a Nazi though.” LOL

            You cannot deny it, you have called me those things. There’s no running from the truth Nigel. And as I said, you even go to the effort to clarify that is what you intended when you said – “Actually I meant the alt right misogynistic racist neo-fascist lifestyle attached to the arguments you espouse.”

            If I could throw a kipper from here… through the broadband line, I would :)

          17. Clampers Outside!

            FYI Nigel





            adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life).

            “the left has espoused the causes of sexual and racial equality”

            synonyms:adopt, embrace, take up, take to, take to one’s heart, receive enthusiastically/wholeheartedly, accept, welcome; More

      3. rotide

        “The goal here is to raise the raise public awareness of this national emergency ”

        Do you think the housing crisis actually needs more public awareness? It’s possible that there is indeed some 5 year olds who just started school that aren’t aware of it, but I suspect this isn’t going to distract them from the fact that Jimmy gets to play with the dinosaur for all of little break and all of big break and thats just not fair

        1. Daisy Chainsaw

          We’re told there’s a housing shortage and that’s why people are sleeping in doorways and garda stations, yet here’s a building that’s lain empty for three years. Did you know there are buildings in the middle of an area deprived of proper housing that are lying empty? Well you do now because of the awareness raised by these protesters.

          1. rotide

            I’m sure there are plenty of building lying empty everywhere. What I would really like to know is what percentage of them are like this one, which ones are permantly Air B’B’d and which ones are empty because of the fair deal scheme.

            Unfortunatetly these lads while being strong on facepainting weren’t very strong on background information

    2. ReproButina

      The issue is not law and order enforcement. Masked goons, supported by the masked PO unit, evicting squatters during a housing crisis is a little more than simple law enforcement. Why were the private security firm masked and in an unmarked van? Why were the PO unit there instead of a couple of uniforms with the PO unit on standby?

      1. Simplelife

        And the reason for the masks is because protesters love taking videos and threatening the families of Gardai because they’re DOING THEIR JOB!!! This false outrage is painful

        1. Hansel

          I’m in favour of the Gardai doing their job in this instance, but I don’t like that they’re wearing masks. I don’t think that’s the right thing to do.
          Obviously I understand that they and their families are being identified and threatened by nutjobs, but I don’t think that the wearing of masks is the right way to deal with it.

          1. Rob_G

            What other way could they possibly do it, save for wearing masks?

            If you illegally occupy a building in violation of a court order, it is possibility that you will encounter men wearing masks; if you don’t want that to happen, vacate the building once the court order is delivered.

        2. ReproButina

          Questioning the methods used by the gardaí is not outrage.

          Starting the operation with the PO unit was a misstep and the optics won’t please a government obsessed with image.

          1. Rob_G

            The workings of the judiciary are independent of the govt anyway; I don’t know how people can blame the govt for a judge issuing a court order in accordance with the law, bailiffs legally carrying out the order, and Gardaí attending the scene for operational reasons – it’s not as if Leo rings up Garda HQ in such instances and tells them how many Gardaí should be sent, and what they should wear.

            The only people that will be upset by the optics of this are likely people that weren’t too keen on the government in the first place.

          2. ReproButina

            There is a official separation between the judiciary and the government but let’s be realistic. Do you honestly believe the new Garda commissioner won’t be getting a phone call from government this morning about masked men evicting people while the government struggles to deal with a housing crisis?

          3. Rob_G

            Do you think that he should? I hope the inspector in charge of Store St or wherever is permitted to operate with enough autonomy that he can decide the appropriate number of Gardaí to assign to a situation to keep everyone safe, without interference from politicians concerned about optics.

            And I hope that Leo et al have better things to be doing (namely, the housing crisis) than interfering with the day-to-day operations of the Gardaí on the basis of some manufactured outrage.

  5. bisted

    …tús maith, leath na hoibre…eh, Drew Harris…some of your old mates from the UDA getting gainful employment?

  6. b

    lets park the outrage for a while, these protesters are absolutely delighted it has happened this way

    meanwhile what have they achieved?

    1. Nigel

      The most decisive action taken in the course of the homeless crisis so far has been to protect the rights of a landlord to keep a property vacant. So they have shown where the interests and priorities of the laws lie after more than ten years of ‘we can’t do this overnight.’

      1. b

        stop being facetious if the government or the courts could send a few heavies in a clapped out van to build houses overnight it would have been tried already

        the property is vacant but also needs significant investment to make it safely habitable – that’s the reality. I think you watched too much DIY SOS or Challenge Anneka

        1. Nigel

          I’m not being facetious. The homelessness crisis needs an overhaul of planning laws and local councils and funding priorities and taxation, and it needs to have started ten years ago, but there’s no sign of it starting at all. The point of this protest isn’t to ‘fix-up’ a place but to show how utterly non-existent meaningful government action has been and continues to be by reminding the public that vacant sites and properties are everywhere and the laws are designed to keep them that way.

        2. Simplelife

          Awh I used to love Challenge Anneka in her big blue truck with her little car that rolled out of the back! Good times!!

  7. Dhaughton99

    “It visually echoes everything from the Ra to the Regency hotel shooting, to old lithographs of bailiffs evicting people during the penal laws. Fuck landlords”

    This from a lad who wears a plastic bag on his head to hide his identity.

  8. Elizabeth Mainwaring

    Don’t be so hysterical, dearie.

    Get back to us when you see a water cannon and some tear gas.

  9. MaryLou's ArmaLite

    So it is ok, celebrated even, when the protesters conceal their identities. However, when law enforcement do it we are outraged?

  10. Clara Vaughan

    Leo varadkar no one voted for you as taoiseach … what a coop……. time for an election … rte shame on you. Shame on you all FG …. This won’t be published because any critisism of leo is filtered…

      1. b

        the line ” any criticism of Leo is filtered” on broadsheet is genuinely one of the funniest things i’ve read here in a long while

    1. MaryLou's ArmaLite

      In the history of the state no Taoiseach has ever been directly elected to that role by the people.

      Shame on you for not knowing how our government works.

    2. MaryLou's ArmaLite

      Finally, coming on here and saying “this won’t be published as criticism of Leo is filtered”….. you don’t come here often do you?

  11. Tom

    The outrage over this is depressing.

    The gardai are there to ensure a court ordered eviction is carried out. The court applied the law and the gardai have a duty to follow that. If these lads feel that’s unjust then take it to a court.

    The reason they are wearing balaclavas is to protect their identity. There are countless Facebook groups setup where faces are uploaded and home addresses sought. These are normal, decent guys doing a job for not much money. They don’t deserve that and fup anyone who screams police state when they are protecting themselves.

  12. small ads

    Isn’t it illegal for gardaí to protect their identity, though? Shoulder numbers are to be worn at all times.

    This is in no way a proportionate response.

    1. Cian

      if you look at the photo above you can see badge numbers are visible on some of the Garda. The other may also have ID but just not in those photos.

      So they can be identified.

  13. Giggidygoo

    My, but there has been a sudden resurrection of FG bots. All waiting for the off. Election on the way. Can’t wait.

    1. bisted

      …haha…was thinking that myself…you can draw a very clear line between the ‘law and order’ party followers and the rest on here over this issue…

  14. rotide

    “How dare they wear masks!” said the people who wore masks.

    I’m not sure which is better, the manufactured outrage over something as inveitble as this or the comments from people giving exactly the type of reaction the organisers were praying for. I mean mentions on broadsheet were sporadic at best and the journal had completely forgotten about them

    1. Nigel

      If the eviction had taken place with a light, unmasked Garda presence it would have probably garnered little to no attention, so frankly, they deserve the backlash for coming the heavy like this. I think people prefer it when the Guards de-escalate and engage rather than stand around looking like a covert paramilitary force.

      1. rotide

        In what world exactly would this “have probably garnered little to no attention”. The entire point of the protest was to ‘raise awareness’. The organisers WANTED this to get more attention. If they wanted to little to no attention, they would have left when ordered to by a court.

        Baliffs legally entered the premises and legally evicted people. I’m going to guess that whatever heavy handed tactics occured was in no way one way traffic. That’s exactly why the guards were there.

        1. Nigel

          You said yourself, attention had wandered off these protests – they’ve almost become commonplace. I’m sure if there was a less thuggish-looking police-state-evoking ejection they would have tried to garner attention, but there’s no way it would have exploded the way this did. Apart from the illegality of the occupation, the protestors have not been physically and verbally threatening or abusive the way the water protestors (arguably) were, or if they were it hasn’t come out. The justification for dressing up like this seems both thin and self-defeating. An eviction was inevitable, would have been met with a shrug and onto the next occupation. This blew it up.

          1. rotide

            Would have been met with a shrug? Not likely.

            However I do agree with the self defeating part, however If i was in the lads shoes, I’d probably do the same thing. They don’t give a toss about how this blew up* and now they don’t have to be subjected to morons calling them out in public and on twitter as scum.

            *Blew up is a relative term here.

          2. Nigel

            I mean it might have still blown up, on a slow news day, of which there aren’t that many at the moment, I just think this made the blow-up inevitable.

  15. Vanessa (off the Telly)

    Hello everyone
    Enforcing an eviction order is not an option for the Courts Service, so you can knit that into all sorts of shapes and sizes to suit your view on what went on here.

    I could go on about how I deal with Enforcement Orders but it is of no assistance here as I strictly deal with Family Home cases.

    But I felt the need to comment before the matter gets washed away in the next news cycle.

    The wearing of Balaclavas is a development that is just too sinister, and I don’t believe the HC Judge that signed the orders would agree with them either. If I am wrong, then I am wrong.

    However I cannot stand by and watch a method of securing a property on foot of a legal order by an Irish Judge, sitting in an Irish Court, whatever the jurisdiction, that gives permission to bring Black Balaclavas back onto our streets.

    So I wanted to say something about it.

    See ye tomorrow, VEF

    1. rotide

      Surely the guys doing the evicting are not acting on behalf of the state or the judiciary so can wear anything they please be it a clown costume or a balaclava?

        1. rotide

          Don’t you think it’s just a little bit ironic to whinge about the optics of a situation when the entire situation came about and was stage managed entirely to create optics?

          1. Freedom

            No – it’s not ironic

            Irony is when something unexpected happens

            What you are describing is a coincidence or possibly even hypocrisy

            You’re demonstrating moronic behavior- your own – by purporting to be a know it all internet commenter but not understanding basic meanings of words.

          2. Nigel

            It’s a bit rich to act shocked or cynical about the reasonably obvious fact that public political protests involve the creation of situations and optics to garner public attention. Somehow I doubt the protestors stage-managed the Guards into wearing the balaclavas, though.

          3. Nigel

            Really? You think that’s Moyest? Moyest would have been more angry-in-support-of-the-protestors-decrying-the-fascists, surely? I thought this was that other one who mostly spent their time attacking other commenters, the one who said that horrible thing about Dara Quigley that time.

  16. Broadbag

    “Fupp landlords” pretty much sums up the level of nuance coming from the populist/permanently outraged crowd. All landlords bad, all protesters good, makes for a very simple life for the simple folk. Of course if squatters took over their house or their parents’ houses most of these people would be straight on the phone crying to the ‘pigs’.
    (No, I’m not a landlord)

    1. SOQ

      It doesn’t matter what happened inside, they could have all had a cup of tea and said a decade of the rosary for all we know but arriving like they were on a knee capping job played right into hands of the protesters.

      Guards need to learn quickly that these are political actions from people who know their rights. Approach them civilly and the response will be likewise. The beef is not with the guards or even the bailiffs because they are just ordinary working men and women too.

      1. Cian

        “Approach them civilly and the response will be likewise”

        They ignored all the requests to leave, and the court order to leave.

        1. Mickey Twopints

          “They ignored all the requests to leave, and the court order to leave”

          Well my, my. That sounds like civil disobedience to me, Cian.

      2. Mickey Twopints


        You’re as old and just as cynical as myself. Just ask yourself one question. Cui bono?

        Authorisation for this operation must have come from a reasonably senior rank within AGS. Now why would that happen, hmm? What possible motivation would anyone within that august and respected body have to cause such an embarassing and controversial scene? A new commissioner from up d’north foisted on AGS by FG?

        Embarassment for their new leader (and Our Glorious Leader, blessed be his name)?

        I wonder if Jackdaw has any insight to contribute?

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link