Disco Disco (2 Viewers)

[Latex lizzie]

..couldn't agree more..what was with the pictures of all the cops on indymedia all about ??? it seems to me that the whole "movement" seems to be more preoccupied with having a go at the cops and setting situations for same. Bah. Big deal we have cops..no they aren't all nice people..I got hassled by a shopkeeper at 8.30 this a.m. I'm not gonna sit out side his shop or throw paint over him or whatever..

 

[Ex-User (1487)]

anyone ever been to the 'el paso' squat in turin? now *there's* something cool done right... people who runs it at the moment are very deadly... the daemo's played there in march... the bath is this giant mosiac basin with an amazing stained glass window over looking it... it has to be seen to be believed. so much amazing art created by the people there... oh la la, i'd love to be back there

 

[Pantone247]

of boogying? nope, after i left yous, i went to a bbq, yep, that late, and got SO drunk... and then took crazy shit, went to witnness, kinda regretted doing so and blah blah... you do anything after? oh, i'm ok with snakey being married now, i've had time to think about it and i'm ok sharing him... you?

Ah yeah I like Mrs Snaky lots, she made me a serious Steak Dinner once, I don't mind Mike hanging with her if she's willing to cook a primo steak dinner once in a while.

Did you really think I was married too, thats funny... I'm totally repulsive to women dude!

After you left, the room got really full of peopleall of a sudden... I got confused, jumped on Donachas back, then went to the Brian Steerages house for pizza and found a rocking chair.

Got home at a quarter past too bloody bright.

I would've shot myself if I thought I was going to make myself go to Wittness

 

[Alex]

Pete, I agree on everything except this:

This isn't amsterdam or italy or germany - bottom line is there are specific laws against this kind of thing

There are laws against this everywhere in Europe but generally these places are tolerated if:

1) The landlord does not give a damn of the place. Say it's too old and in bad conditions to rent it and they haven't the money or the will to refurbish it. In Italy, some pay a rent like if it was normal premises. Generally though, this rent is *very* little due to the place conditions, etc.
This actually sorts a lot of problems because at that stage it's like you rented an apartment so, unless there's evidently any illegal activity going on there, the garda can do nothing about it.

This said, if the landlord is not open minded, then he will ring the police and they'll have to do something, it's their jobs.

2) The place is not in a visible/central location. If nobody sees it then it's alright. If people of the community living in the nearby are concerned and ring the garda, then you're back to point 2: it's their job to check what's going on and, if illegal, they'll shut the place down.

Despite all this, I think what the people involved are trying to do is very good and they should keep trying until they find a way that works... best of luck guys.

Alex

 

[pete]

Ah yes but i didn't mean to say that there weren't laws against it in foreign - what i'm getting at is it doesn't really matter what happens elsewhere, because it's still very much illegal here.

 

[snakybus]

in fairness Pantone that night you looked you could do with a proper meal, you had that wanton look about you, you know?

and hag, there's plenty of Snake to go around

now what was it, squats?

ah sure nothing ever gets done right in Ireland, we can't even squat right

 

[Pantone247]

in fairness Pantone that night you looked you could do with a proper meal, you had that wanton look about you, you know?

ah it ended up okay, I went home and feed myself in the end

 

[snakybus]

ah it ended up okay, I went home and feed myself in the end

after having that big steak?

you're some savage

 

[herv]

Herv I just read back over this and it sounds very negative, but it wasnt written in a bad tone or in a personal attack, I am genuinely interested in what you have to say so please dont take the posting to be a wind-up, I want to have a debate not a slanging match... peace

hi redflaremist...

thanks for replying. first of all i just wanted to say i don't take any offence whatsoever to what you're saying, this is an open forum and alls cool in that regard. i too appreciate the feedback.

yesterday when i started writing my responses to the incident in question it was somewhat in response to to one message in particular which was posted on indymedia which talked about the parallels between this eviction and the evictions during the irish famine. at the time i was somewhat peeved at this statement, mainly as i didn't realise that several of the people involved were homeless at the time when they moved in. it was only later on in the day when jillface mentioned it that i understood the depth of the situation. i was somewhat annoyed at what i saw at the time as a rather whinging attitude and that, coupled with the comment "ILLEGALLY evicted by the defenders of the capitalist status quo..." i think my anti s.w.p. hat went on.
in hindsight this was a mistake, i allowed myself to make a judgement based on the comments of one person and i think that this tainted my view of the situation somewhat.



What tactics do you think they should adopt in future? How long do you think Dublin has to wait until the climate is conducive to 'stunts' like this?

well, again i have to look back to what jillface said yesterday. i hadn't realised that a premises was needed at such short notice, and i suppose making the move when they did was the right thing to do. i guess though if it was possible in future it would be fantastic if there was more media coverage outside of indymedia, maybe some radio, tv presence? at such short notice this is difficult to get i realise, but it was possible to plan in advance that would be advantagous.

i have more stuff to say, but i have to go for lunch. will continue later.

 

[jillface]

Actually Alex, I think the laws over here are significantly different from other European laws. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure the laws refering to this subject were initially laws against the travelling community. Hmm, think I'll check this out...

 

[pete]

i hadn't realised that a premises was needed at such short notice, and i suppose making the move when they did was the right thing to do. i guess though if it was possible in future it would be fantastic if there was more media coverage outside of indymedia, maybe some radio, tv presence? at such short notice this is difficult to get i realise, but it was possible to plan in advance that would be advantagous.

Ummm wasn't this action planned for that date for at least a couple of weeks beforehand?

 

[Pantone247]

after having that big steak?

you're some savage

huh?

oh right, getcha

I think we got our wires crossed

I was talking about something else, y'know

"feeding yourself"

"cooking for one"

"pasta solo?...pasta solo!!"

"basting the sunday roast"

"frying the onions without boiling the cabbage"

y'know

 

[jillface]

Ummm wasn't this action planned for that date for at least a couple of weeks beforehand?

Yes, this is true. For weeks, planning an action for that date was taking place. However, finding a venue and researching it to the best of the collective's ability proved extremely difficult. Really, try it! It was 'till a few days beforehand that this venue was actually chosen on the advice of experienced Dutch squatters.

 

[LMD64]

And whether or not the cops were heavy handed is a total red herring and a whole other issue - the owner of the property was legally right, the squatters were legally wrong. The cops were there to enforce the law. Anyone naive enough to be surprised at cops pushing people around or banging a few heads together in this day and age really has no business getting involved with direct action like this.

have to say, i'm not surprised the cops got overly heavy handed, i think the reason that they were getting such a hard time on IMC is because they aren't supposed to get involved in civil matters. In this case, they're not supposed to assist private landlords in evicting people from their property (be they legal tenants or squatters).

like i say, though, i'm not surprised...

 

[Alex]

Actually Alex, I think the laws over here are significantly different from other European laws. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure the laws refering to this subject were initially laws against the travelling community. Hmm, think I'll check this out...

You're probably right. I just wanted to point out that common sense (when choosing and taking a place) can help avoiding these bad situations.

The feel I had all over Europe is that as long as people (landlord, community, etc.) are not giving out, the police let it go. Many places in "prime locations" in Milan were shut down but then reopened in a more "discrete" way and nobody bothered them. Also, most of the places ended up paying a little rent to make things easier, maybe it could work here too..?

This is just my 2c of course...

 

[pete]

have to say, i'm not surprised the cops got overly heavy handed, i think the reason that they were getting such a hard time on IMC is because they aren't supposed to get involved in civil matters. In this case, they're not supposed to assist private landlords in evicting people from their property (be they legal tenants or squatters).

like i say, though, i'm not surprised...

There's a difference between a dispute between a sitting tenant and landlord (a civil matter) and breaking into a property to take possession of it (a criminal offence).

See link a few posts back to 1971 forcible entry gubbins

 

[Latex lizzie]

You're probably right. I just wanted to point out that common sense (when choosing and taking a place) can help avoiding these bad situations.

The feel I had all over Europe is that as long as people (landlord, community, etc.) are not giving out, the police let it go. Many places in "prime locations" in Milan were shut down but then reopened in a more "discrete" way and nobody bothered them. Also, most of the places ended up paying a little rent to make things easier, maybe it could work here too..?

This is just my 2c of course...

..that's the key alex "discrete". It looked as if those guys had banners all over the exterior of the building?? did they just get put up when the cops arrived or wha??If it was a case of direct action to sort a few homeless people out with a roof over their heads..well and good..they could have gotten away with it for a longer period. when I was in holand there was a squat nearby(I use squat in the loosest sense of the word..it was really nice) and the people who lived there started off really quiet..lived there for ten years and then it was legally theirs.Is the law the same here or wha?

 

[LMD64]

You're probably right. I just wanted to point out that common sense (when choosing and taking a place) can help avoiding these bad situations.

The feel I had all over Europe is that as long as people (landlord, community, etc.) are not giving out, the police let it go. Many places in "prime locations" in Milan were shut down but then reopened in a more "discrete" way and nobody bothered them. Also, most of the places ended up paying a little rent to make things easier, maybe it could work here too..?

This is just my 2c of course...

I reckon it's the fact that the landlord sees his property being overrun with idlers and layabouts, who aren't giving him a penny for the use of his building, thereby causing him to lose money from the potential income he could be earning from the property, was like a red rag to a bull. It was definitely an overreaction on his part, but at the same time, the fact that his site was derelict for such a long time is a flaw in the argument that he was completely within his rights to forcibly and violently eject the squatters from his property. I think.

from http://www.enfo.ie/leaflets/fs12-5.htm

Derelict Sites Act, 1990 (No. 14 of 1990)
This act replaced the Derelict Sites Act, 1961 and provided more effective powers for responding to and preventing dereliction. The act widened the definition of "derelict site" to include dwellings and placed a duty on all owners and occupiers to ensure that their property is not, nor does not become a derelict site. Local authorities are required by the act to take all reasonable steps to prevent and remedy dereliction in their areas and are given wide powers for this purpose. Provision is made also for an annual levy, based on market value, on certain derelict sites in urban areas. This levy, which will initially be at a rate of 3 per cent of the property's market value, will come into operation in a local financial year to be fixed by the Minister for the Environment.

I'd be guessing that he wasn't subjected to any such levy, a property like that would be potentially worth anything from 500k up to 2 million, 3% being in the range of 15k to 60k per annum.

from http://www.bcmhanbywallace.com/news/article.asp?Id=192

When a vesting order is made in favour of the local authority (who thereby take over the land compulsorily) the land owner has 12 months within which to claim compensation to be determined by arbitration in default of agreement. If the local authority is in possession for 12 years unchallenged by the land owner it becomes the owner of the land by virtue of the Statute of Limitations 1957 so that the original owner could no longer claim compensation even if he persuaded a Court that the time limits in the Derelict Sites Act for claiming compensation should not apply for one reason or another.

The 4 points and the last paragraph are particularly interesting. If the local authority were able to take over, would the squatters be as likely to be ejected from the property (pessimistically, i'd say probably yes).
Still though, that property has been lying idle for more years than i care to remember. And why has the local authority not tried to take it over? I wonder who owns the property?

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2001/09/30/story306562.asp
bloody greedy thieving-gippo money-grabbing lazy-arsed bastard


wow, it's amazing what you can find on the auld interweb

 

[LMD64]

There's a difference between a dispute between a sitting tenant and landlord (a civil matter) and breaking into a property to take possession of it (a criminal offence).

See link a few posts back to 1971 forcible entry gubbins

um, yeah, i knew that

 

[pete]

um, yeah, i knew that

sorry it didn't sound like it

anyways i think there's a fair few people who didn't seem to realise it, so maybe some good came of it.