# FAIR "Love Ulster" march in Dublin



## car (23 Feb 2006)

LOVE
Ive been told by 1 or 2 people to avoid the citycentre this weekend for the above reason.  Am personally not bothered but I know others will be to the degree that there could be trouble.  
As we're generally a balanced sort on here, whats peoples views on whether this march should proceed?   While Im all for opening up social borders, this may be one that doesnt need to be opened yet.


----------



## Purple (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

Let them at it. Most people don't care what a bunch of tribalistic backwoods men do with their Saturday.


----------



## Lauren (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

Lovely...just what we needed to brighten up the weekend..I agree...let them at it...its an irritation that its been allowed to go ahead...


----------



## Purple (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



> its an irritation that its been allowed to go ahead...


 I disagree. They are entitled to express their views; it's all one country after all...
I would consider them to be in the same category as the Flat Earth society.


----------



## Lauren (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

True, I take your point...democracy and all of that....They irritate me on their own though and there are enough nutters down here to make it more serious than irritation....


----------



## ubiquitous (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

Both SFIRA &  the Socialist Workers Movement regularly hold marches in the O'Connell Street/GPO area on Saturday - at least judging by the posters that appear on city-centre lamposts every so often. 

As there doesn't appear to be any general objection to these regular marches, I can't see what the problem is this time around.


----------



## gauloise (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

According to the Drumderg Loyalist Flute Band the march is due to take place on March 25th.
I personally don't hold the belief that it is  *one country*  and I wonder how many of us took to the North to protest over the years or to London for that matter.


----------



## icantbelieve (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

I wonder what route they've been given. I can't think what their reasoning for marching is, the goverment is hardly likely to cede to their wishes and to an extent they're asking for trouble. Let them march, if their only real desire is for tv coverage showing clashes with some of Dublin's more unsavoury element then fair enough.


----------



## Humpback (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				Purple said:
			
		

> it's all one country after all...


 
It's not. They're from the United Kingdom. Why should people be allowed in from a foreign country in order to protest on our streets. Why not allow the Pakistani people who are protesting against those cartoons in Karachi to come in here and protest against The Star?

It's ridiculous, and further pandering by Bertie Ahern to the Unionist population in Northern Ireland. 

Ably supported it seems by Labour at the moment - has anyone seen their ridiculous notion of including the British army in any rememberances of 1916. Any for seeing some of the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe rocking up to the War Memorial in London on Poppy Day??????


----------



## car (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



> take place on March 25th.


Its this def. saturday. they may have said the "Feb 25th March" which I agree may be confusing.
If they just walk up and down with a flag or 2, union jack or no then sure ok. Ive no problem with it. 
If, as I heard on the radio this morning, they start holding up photos of suspected catholic killers in the 70s, surely thats just asking for trouble. The march organiser said he couldnt do anything about it if some of the marchers decided to do just that as its regular practice to hold up remembrances of the lost and fallen heros of the orange order whilst marching.  If that is the case then they may as well walk through islamabad with some danish cartoons. 
I repeat again, we're balanced here on this forum and can easily say let them at it, but you have to admit that not everyone else is and the slightest provocation can kick "them" off, so IMO its a risk letting it go ahead.


----------



## quarterfloun (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

It's better than watching endless repeats of the Simpsons though.......


----------



## Humpback (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				quarterfloun said:
			
		

> It's better than watching endless repeats of the Simpsons though.......


 
Blasphemy!!!!!


----------



## efm (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



> It's better than watching endless repeats of the Simpsons though.......


 
Homer sayas NO!!!!


----------



## ClubMan (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				car said:
			
		

> If, as I heard on the radio this morning, they start holding up photos of suspected catholic killers in the 70s, surely thats just asking for trouble.


Do you mean alleged _Catholic _killers or alleged killers of _Catholics_? And do you actually mean _Catholics _or doe you actually mean _Republicans _or _Nationalists _or something else?


> I repeat again, we're balanced here on this forum and can easily say let them at it, but you have to admit that not everyone else is and the slightest provocation can kick "them" off, so IMO its a risk letting it go ahead.


As with any march as long as they abide by the relevant rules (e.g. planning, consultation with the _Gardaí_) and laws (public order etc.) then they should be allowed to go ahead. The argument that they should not because of the supposed threat of trouble from other quarters is a very dangerous one.


----------



## ubiquitous (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



> It's not. They're from the United Kingdom. Why should people be allowed in from a foreign country in order to protest on our streets. Why not allow the Pakistani people who are protesting against those cartoons in Karachi to come in here and protest against The Star?



The above statements are ludicrous. The people who will be participating in this march (or at least their spokesmen) have emphasised clearly that they are taking their case to a neighbouring country. They would be the last people to claim that they are somehow affiliated to this State.

The argument about "people from a foreign country" coming here to protest is particularly risible. There is a long tradition of "foreigners" coming here to hold public protests on various issues, human rights in Nigeria, and the anti-apartheid cause in South Africa being two notable examples. 

If anyone wants to come here from abroad to protest against the Danish cartoons or indeed the war in Iraq, I don't see any problem in them doing so, once they have the required clearance from the local authorities/Garda etc to do so.



> It's ridiculous, and further pandering by Bertie Ahern to the Unionist population in Northern Ireland.


Would you prefer if we shut our doors, our eyes and our ears to the Unionist population north of the border? What hope then will we ever have of reconciliation and peace on this island? God knows, we were a blinkered, insular Catholic state for long enough...


----------



## TarfHead (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

I'll be in the 'burbs all weekend so they can walk their legs to bloody stumps up and down O'Connell Street for all I care.

I choose to be not offended by their presence in Dublin. I assume the usual rent-a-mob will make different choices.

Tiocfaidh ar moral outrage ?


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

Only playing into their hands to protest.

Ever wonder why they want to walk the traditional route??
(1) Cos its the queens highway and they have always done it and
(2) Because it annoys the locals so much.

If we ignore it then they dont get a kick out of it, if they feel they are rubbing our noses in it then they are loving it.

Wouldnt you have thought that a Boyne Commemeration would be their holy grail if they are serious about their "culture"? And I use "culture" in inverted commas because it is a bit more like pure tribalism when all you want to do is celebrate sectarianism. 

I think the balance of tolerance between the 2 states is always highlighted around the height of the marching season when Church of Ireland clergy in the south express their abhorrance at Drumcree like sieges and, on more than 1 occasion, say that it wouldnt happen in the south. Lets not prove them wrong.

I like that comment that we've been an insular catholic state for too long - God help us if we are depending on the Orange Order to broaden our minds...


----------



## Humpback (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> The above statements are ludicrous. The people who will be participating in this march (or at least their spokesmen) have emphasised clearly that they are taking their case to a neighbouring country. They would be the last people to claim that they are somehow affiliated to this State.


 
My statement is not ludicrous. In fact, my comment is along the lines of what you're saying. Please reread the statement, and you'll see that I made no comment regarding what these protesters are saying, or not saying. I was merely responding to someone elses comment, who claimed that we were all one country.



			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> The argument about "people from a foreign country" coming here to protest is particularly risible. There is a long tradition of "foreigners" coming here to hold public protests on various issues, human rights in Nigeria, and the anti-apartheid cause in South Africa being two notable examples.


 
Again, you're off track, ubiquitous. Were these Nigerians and South Africans that you speak of demonstrating in Dublin being bussed or trained in for a few hours from Lagos and Cape Town in order to walk up O'Connell Street holding a few placquards, and then going back home for tea and crumpets?

Or, as I suspect, were they refugees from the country in question, living in Ireland because of the poor state of their own country?



			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> If anyone wants to come here from abroad to protest against the Danish cartoons or indeed the war in Iraq, I don't see any problem in them doing so, once they have the required clearance from the local authorities/Garda etc to do so.


 
I disagree. If they live in a state where protest and free expression is banned or restricted, then possibly there's a justification for opening up our thoroughfares for such protests, such as your Nigerians and South Africans above.

But if they live in a country where free speech and the right to protest is unqualified, as these protesters at the weekend do, then why would we want them or allow them to protest on our streets. They're perfectly free to do it on their own streets.

Particularly when they're protesting about something that's happening in their own country and nothing to do with what's happening in our country. As can be seen from the comments above, this protest is a pure and unadulterated attempt at provocation. Nothing more.



			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Would you prefer if we shut our doors, our eyes and our ears to the Unionist population north of the border?


 
Nope. If they protest on the streets of Belfast about whatever they're protesting about, I'll read and consider whatever it is they have to say. They don't have to be "in my face" by protesting in my own city.




			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> What hope then will we ever have of reconciliation and peace on this island? God knows, we were a blinkered, insular Catholic state for long enough...


 
Reconciliation does not equal pandering, which is something that Bertie should take note of.


----------



## car (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



> Do you mean alleged _Catholic _killers or alleged killers of _Catholics_? And do you actually mean _Catholics _or doe you actually mean _Republicans _or _Nationalists _or something else?


I meant suspected killers of _Catholics_.  Those were the words used this morning, radio 1 if Im not mistaken.  
They were referring to one individual in particular from the 70s that the IRA subsequently murdered.   



> As with any march as long as they abide by the relevant rules (e.g. planning, consultation with the _Gardaí_) and laws (public order etc.) then they should be allowed to go ahead.


Agreed.



> The argument that they should not because of the supposed threat of trouble from other quarters is a very dangerous one.


A very dangerous argument indeed as it implies the authorities wouldnt be able to control any such trouble, but I feel the threat is very real in this instance that trouble will indeed happen. If Im not making it clear, I do hope the threat doesnt come pass.  I too will be in the 'burbs.


----------



## ubiquitous (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

Very few of the South Africans who protested against apartheid on Dublin's streets in the 1980s lived here at the time. Ditto the Nigerians who protested here against the execution of Ken Saro Wiwa in November 1995. Ditto again the Nicaraguans who visited Ireland to protest against Ronald Reagan's treatment of the Nicaraguan Sandanista government in the 1980s. To imply that these people were here as "refugees" is bizarre.

Don't forget that Irish farmers have in the past staged major demonstrations in continental Europe, notably in Brussels.


----------



## CCOVICH (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				quarterfloun said:
			
		

> It's better than watching endless repeats of the Simpsons though.......


 
You very close to a banning after that statement.


----------



## redstar (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

But sure aren't those LOVEies from another part of the European Union, so they are not really foreigners  

The route takes them past some old British-era landmarks - including the building on Dawson St where the Orange Order was founded. 'New Ireland Assurance' is there now , I think (how ironic !)
Some of the other streets on the route (Molesworth St for example) are named after various Crown ministers and ambassadors etc ...


----------



## dam099 (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> It's not. They're from the United Kingdom. Why should people be allowed in from a foreign country in order to protest on our streets. Why not allow the Pakistani people who are protesting against those cartoons in Karachi to come in here and protest against The Star?
> 
> It's ridiculous, and further pandering by Bertie Ahern to the Unionist population in Northern Ireland.
> 
> Ably supported it seems by Labour at the moment - has anyone seen their ridiculous notion of including the British army in any rememberances of 1916. Any for seeing some of the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe rocking up to the War Memorial in London on Poppy Day??????


 
They might be from the UK but its a part of the UK we had a territorial claim on until not that long ago. They also have an automatic right to Irish citizenship so even though they won't claim it they are not unconnected to this state. 

Finally our government routinely interferes (from their point of view and there is an element of truth in it) in the running of their state so they are perfectly entitled to come here and protest the actions of that government.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				car said:
			
		

> A very dangerous argument indeed as it implies the authorities wouldnt be able to control any such trouble, but I feel the threat is very real in this instance that trouble will indeed happen.


 I specifically meant that it was a very dangerous argument from the point of view of mitigating or abrogating everybody's right to free speech and giving in to incipient latent or actual bullying/threats.

Maybe they'll all end up in _Dalymount Park _boosting our bar coffers like when all the _Linfield _fans did likewise last time they played down here.


----------



## extopia (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> They're from the United Kingdom.



They are from the northern part of Ireland. Not everyone recognises the partition of the island. And neither does the State.

Personally, I think they're very welcome. March away, lads. I think they will be largely ignored, which will be quite a shock to them if it happens.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				extopia said:
			
		

> They are from the northern part of Ireland. Not everyone recognises the partition of the island. And neither does the State.


 Wrong. The state and a majority of its citizens (as evidenced by the changes to articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution a while back) do indeed recognise partition:


> *Article 3
> 
> *1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
> 
> 2. Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.


----------



## extopia (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

I really believe that's a matter of interpretation.

_Article 2

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage._


----------



## ClubMan (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

Not really - article 3 is quite clear in recognising the authority of two juristictions on the island of _Ireland_: our own and the _UK_. Note the specific restriction of powers of the state to a subset of the island and recognition of the existence of dual juristictions of the whole island. Article 3 merely extends citizenship to some people outside of the juristiction. It does nothing to claim juristiction over the whole island or contradict the clear recognition of the legitimacy of the _UK _government of _Northern Ireland_. Sorry if that disappoints anybody but that's what the majority voted for as part of the _Belfast Agreement _related constitutional changes.


----------



## extopia (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

It is also clear from Article 2 that our northern brethren, whether of the nationalist or unionist persuasion, are part of the Irish nation. To brand them as "foreigners" as some have done above, is clearly unfair.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

It is their *entitlement *to be part of the _"Irish Nation" _but there is no compulsion on them to take up that entitlement and obviously a significant number of them certainly don't.


----------



## extopia (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

Obviously, yes.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

Which means to label the ones who decline the article 2 offer foreigners is correct.


----------



## extopia (23 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> Which means to label the ones who decline the article 2 offer foreigners is correct.



I disagree, obviously.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

So you believe that we can (should?) force a nationality on those who reject it when our own constitution makes it clear that this nationality is an optional entitlement?


----------



## extopia (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

No. Where did I say that?

I'm of the opinion that people born in Ireland (either jurisdiction) are Irish. I do not regard Irish people as foreigners, even if they do not have a passport.

To get back to the original question, as far as I'm concerned the lads in the bowler hats are welcome to come down and introduce us to some of their traditions, which are of course all part of the weave of Irish cultural activity.

Incidentally, before someone goes on about northern protestants/unionists being of Scottish extraction, did you know that Scotland is derived from the Latin word Scotus, meaning.... "Irishman."


----------



## ClubMan (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				extopia said:
			
		

> I'm of the opinion that people born in Ireland (either jurisdiction) are Irish. I do not regard Irish people as foreigners, even if they do not have a passport.


Many inhabitants of _NI _don't consider themselves _Irish _(in the sense that they belong to the _"Irish Nation" _mentioned above) and reject any attribution of such an interpretation of Irishness to them. 


> To get back to the original question, as far as I'm concerned the lads in the bowler hats are welcome to come down and introduce us to some of their traditions, which are of course all part of the weave of Irish cultural activity.


Personally I'm neutral on it and neither welcome nor shun them. It makes no odds to me either way. Unless they head to _Dalyer _for a pint afterwards where I would welcome them.


----------



## sherib (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

I'm _Irish_ because I was born in the Republic of Ireland. Presumably the marchers paying us a visit next Sunday are _Northern Irish _ and also citizens of the _United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland_ - for the foreseeable future. They're not _English_, _Scottish_ or _Welsh _or have I got it wrong? 

I'm _Irish_ and stuck with it - whether I like it or not.


----------



## Purple (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



> It's not. They're from the United Kingdom. Why should people be allowed in from a foreign country in order to protest on our streets.


I was being sarcastic Ronan. Adopting the attitude that it's nice to see our northern countrymen in the capital would not please them.


----------



## delgirl (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

Best thing to do is let them march and pointedly ignore them.  

They're nothing but bullies and, like any bully, if they don't get a reaction all their posturing will have been in vain.


----------



## redbhoy (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

I think the only reason they're coming here is because they know theres always going to be some (probably a small minority) who will cause them grief and with a bit of luck it'll end in violence that'll be all over the media. This way they can strengthen their position up in the 6 counties by going back and preaching that 'those fenians' down south hate us and would never allow us to be a proper part of a United Ireland, we'd always be an oppressed minority to them etc!
Unfortunately, I think they'll get their wishes as theres a small minority of numbskulls everywhere and Ive a feeling RSF and other dissident groups will let their feelings show in more than a peaceful protest.


----------



## quarterfloun (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

What makes me wonder is why all these "demonstrations of affiliation" such as this march, gay pride etc. are important to people. Life is too short for me to spend any of my time feeling put out or distressed because I may or may not agree with their reason for marching.

Live and let live.


----------



## Audrey (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				extopia said:
			
		

> They are from the northern part of Ireland. Not everyone recognises the partition of the island. And neither does the State.
> 
> Personally, I think they're very welcome. March away, lads. I think they will be largely ignored, which will be quite a shock to them if it happens.


 I agree that they will be quite shocked if they are ignored.  I hope they are ignored as I think that would be the best outcome for the sake of peace.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				Andrewa said:
			
		

> I agree that they will be quite shocked if they are ignored.  I hope they are ignored as I think that would be the best outcome for the sake of peace.


 Not necessarily. Observing them or even counter demonstrating while not causing trouble would have the same effect. Part of the problem here seems to be that people are concentrating on what *might *happen *if *some extremists cause trouble.


----------



## Gordanus (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

Quote from link given in first post:
More than 1,000 people are planning to go on the march, which is being organized by a group representing victims of republican terrorism, Families Acting For Innocent Relatives. The Armagh, Northern Ireland-based group said it agreed a route with the Dublin Police Department for the parade.

``Broadly, we think there is too much interference in the affairs of the North by the Irish government,'' said William Frazer, the march organizer, in a telephone interview from Armagh. ``We are bringing that message down south.''

2 questions:  how did the LOVE acronym get into this?  The organisation is FAIR.

What would happen if it ended up that they march and passers-by just look at them quizzically as they do with most marchers........ How can that lead to 'triumphalism'?  But I suppose the SF etc will all be out.


----------



## CCOVICH (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*

I don't think LOVE is an acronym-I think the parade is orgainsed by FAIR, and its theme is 'Love Ulster' (Pat Spillane won't have any of that!).


----------



## Sherman (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



> Dublin Police Department


 
Eh?


----------



## ClubMan (24 Feb 2006)

Maybe they're actually marching in [broken link removed]?


----------



## DrMoriarty (24 Feb 2006)

Had to love the UU guy they had on the Last Word tonight, '_agin_'! _(and what's that all about, anyway...?  ) _arguing that surely drum-banging Orangemen should be included under our constitutional clause about 'cherishing all the children of the Nation equally'...


----------



## GeneralZod (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				sherib said:
			
		

> I'm _Irish_ because I was born in the Republic of Ireland. Presumably the marchers paying us a visit next Sunday are _Northern Irish _ and also citizens of the _United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland_ - for the foreseeable future. They're not _English_, _Scottish_ or _Welsh _or have I got it wrong?
> 
> I'm _Irish_ and stuck with it - whether I like it or not.



I think some of them prefer to label themselves just British (nothing wrong/incompatible with also being Irish with that) because they've come to associate "Irish" with the people trying to bomb and shoot them in a particular direction. 
30 years of sectarian violence will do that. Before all the violence many more of them also considered themselves Irish while still supporting the union.


----------



## dam099 (24 Feb 2006)

*Re: LOVE march*



			
				GeneralZod said:
			
		

> I think some of them prefer to label themselves just British (nothing wrong/incompatible with also being Irish with that) because they've come to associate "Irish" with the people trying to bomb and shoot them in a particular direction.
> 30 years of sectarian violence will do that. Before all the violence many more of them also considered themselves Irish while still supporting the union.


 
As someone who has been an expat for a number of years I can say from personal experience that many of my Northern Irish friends of a unionist background would when asked their nationality by most people describe themselves as Irish or Northern Irish (except with their Southern Irish friends like myself who they would tell British to try and wind us up).


----------



## ClubMan (24 Feb 2006)

Do you mean that you are originally from the _ROI _and now living in _NI _or what else has being an expat got to do with this?


----------



## extopia (24 Feb 2006)

DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> Had to love the UU guy they had on the Last Word tonight... arguing that surely drum-banging Orangemen should be included under our constitutional clause about 'cherishing all the children of the Nation equally'...



I don't know what he's arguing about - they ARE included. Many of them don't understand this however. The aspiration towards a pluralist, 32 county republic (with the right of self-determination by the people of the six counties) is clear in the Constitution.

As an aside, it's annoying that Unionists use the term "Ulster" as if it were synonymous with the "Northern Ireland" jurisdiction which only covers six of Ulster's nine counties. Maybe this is why even today I come across people who think that Donegal, for example, is not in the Republic.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Feb 2006)

extopia said:
			
		

> The aspiration towards a pluralist, 32 county republic...


It's a pity the preamble to the constitution isn't a bit more pluralist towards those of non _Christian _faiths or none at all:


> In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
> 
> We, the people of Éire,
> 
> ...


----------



## extopia (25 Feb 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> It's a pity the preamble to the constitution isn't a bit more pluralist towards those of non _Christian _faiths or none at all:



Totally agreed. The preamble is contradicted by Article 3:

_It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions..._

I suppose when the preamble was written the idea of a non-Christian or even agnostic State was just not conceivable. I think any move to update or remove this preamble would be carried easily by referendum.

Maybe it's time to start the campaign? The pols will soon be knocking on the doors.


----------



## GeneralZod (25 Feb 2006)

extopia said:
			
		

> As an aside, it's annoying that Unionists use the term "Ulster" as if it were synonymous with the "Northern Ireland" jurisdiction which only covers six of Ulster's nine counties. Maybe this is why even today I come across people who think that Donegal, for example, is not in the Republic.



Annoying in the same way that some people refer to Northern Ireland  as the North of Ireland even though 
they're not the same thing? Donegal being the main exhibit again.


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2006)

How about a big sign saying "Welcome to your capital" over a road that they will pass under? Just to let them know that they are welcome...
Jokes aside, if we in the "free state" are serious about a pluralist Ireland then we really do have to welcome them here. I think that is the last thing the march organizers want.


----------



## soc (25 Feb 2006)

Just saw footage of the riots that happened in the city... I'm angry and disgusted!  

I noticed that alot of the ones on O'Connell St, causing the problems were inner city scumbags... a person with any intelligence would have let the protest pass through, and use a bit of the ol' reverse psychology with the loyalists.  

Ireland needs to clean itself up of these scumbags... 


-soc


----------



## onekeano (25 Feb 2006)

Sounds like it's the Shinners we need to be more concerned about 
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0225/loyalist.html

a plank of wood in one hand and a firecracker in the other?

Roy


----------



## dam099 (25 Feb 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Do you mean that you are originally from the _ROI _and now living in _NI _or what else has being an expat got to do with this?


 
No I am from ROI living outside Ireland altogether. I am just saying that in my personal experience once people are removed from the enviroment in NI their opinions on nationality seem to be a little less black and white and that many of my friends who are from what would be considered Unionist backgrounds acknowledge some degree of Irishness that they probably would not have done while living in the more hostile environment up North (not necessarily excluding the fact they still also consider themseves British aswell I don't see them getting Irish passports and voting for an United Ireland) The significance of being an expat just means that I have lived in a situation where I was able to observe this phenomenon. Obviously just my personal observation so not scientific proof of anything but that has been my experience.


----------



## stuart (25 Feb 2006)

soc said:
			
		

> Just saw footage of the riots that happened in the city... I'm angry and disgusted!
> 
> I noticed that a lot of the ones on O'Connell St, causing the problems were inner city scumbags-soc


 
I haven't seen the footage but how can you tell where they were from by watching television?


----------



## delgirl (25 Feb 2006)

dam099 said:
			
		

> I am just saying that in my personal experience once people are removed from the enviroment in NI their opinions on nationality seem to be a little less black and white.


Your experience mirrors mine, apart from the fact that I am from the North.

I met people in various far flung places who were delighted to hear an 'accent from home' and once the questioning of 'what's your surname' or 'what school did you go to' was dealt with, we all knew where we stood and got along really well.  

It's disappointing that the march turned into a riot, IMHO any protest which is likely to cause distruption to the city centre, damage to businesses or injury to members of the Gardai, should not be permitted.


----------



## Duplex (25 Feb 2006)

So a violent rabble of narrow minded sectarian gobdaws, have prevented a crowd of narrow minded sectarian gobdaws from marching/parading through Dublin.  This sordid little shambles (and I don’t mean the road works on O’Connell Street), will now dominate political debate in Ireland for a couple of weeks, in another utterly futile exercise in bringing rational thought to a subject matter that predates the enlightenment in its origins.

I think that instead of parades or marches by opposing ‘traditions’; from now on we should organise a bimonthly cartoon competition.  Any thoughts?


----------



## ClubMan (25 Feb 2006)

soc said:
			
		

> JI noticed that alot of the ones on O'Connell St, causing the problems were inner city scumbags...


 I thought that the addresses of many of the 14 in court tonight were not inner city?


			
				delgirl said:
			
		

> It's disappointing that the march turned into a riot


It didn't. The march never got going and the riot was between counter demonstrators and _Gardai_.


----------



## Purple (26 Feb 2006)

The scumbags (from whatever postal code) managed to damage the international image of this country. The New York Times  ran a nice superficial little story about it today.
The Marchers got exactly what they wanted; they showed their supporters back up North that we in the "South" are still too sectarian to be taken seriously when we talk of a pluralist united Ireland. Having seen the RSF supporters on the News I am inclined to agree with them. The fact that many of them are as bigoted as the stone throwers is beside the point.


----------



## Henny Penny (26 Feb 2006)

I had the misfortune of being in Dublin city yesterday during the violence ... not an experience I would care to repeat. 

O'Connell street was completely closed off. There were gardai in riot gear (50+ of them) cordoning off O'Connell bridge ... which was in my opinion their only option. If those thugs got home they would never be caught. Fair play to the gardai they did a great job.

It was like a war zone ... with an energy of violence and a mob dynamic all of it's own. 

Neo-nationalism may have been the excuse, but IMHO it was an opportunity to engage in violence for the sake of it.


----------



## Purple (26 Feb 2006)

Henny Penny said:
			
		

> Neo-nationalism may have been the excuse, but IMHO it was an opportunity to engage in violence for the sake of it.


I agree.


----------



## sherib (26 Feb 2006)

Isn't it OTT to suggest that Irish citizens didn't welcome our neighbours from the North of Ireland because a small number of thugs created mayhem? There seems to have been very poor planning or preparation by the authorities for the march. 

Due to a prior arrangement I planned a visit to the cinema in Parnell Street yesterday afternoon. At 2.15 pm while on the 46A bus, the driver got a message telling him to drop the passengers in Leeson Street. Wasn't that a bit late to be diverting traffic from the city centre? I made my way to Parnell Street walking parallel to O'Connell Street and saw nothing untoward. 

After the film around 5.30pm we walked the length of O'Connell Street. The only signs of the riot then were about six smashed windows in premises between Batchelor's Walk and Abbey Street. What was most striking was the building site appearance of O'Connell Street. Clearly it would have been impossible to have effectively monitored a march through O'Connell Street with large areas of the street dug up. A perfect location for thugs whose sole purpose was to create mayhem. A listener who was there phoned the Marion Finnucane show today and said he overheard one of the rioters ask where was the Dail and was told Dame Street!

Given the hype that preceded the march I don't think 50 gardai was an adequate response or that the route should have been through O'Connell Street. Political motives aren't attributed to football hooligans and neither should they be attributed to yesterday's protesters.


----------



## ninsaga (26 Feb 2006)

Saw this on the RTE 9o'clock news last night.... what I found peculiar was the limited amount of video footage being shown...RTE replayed the same short clips 2 or 3 times....

ninsaga


----------



## ClubMan (26 Feb 2006)

One slightly tangential annoying thing about this whole incident was the impression (hopefully wrong) given by many news reports that the Dublin City Business Association - representing (some?) traders in the city - were the final arbiters in relation to what could and could not happen in the city centre. Many reports justified the arrangements and policing for the abortive march on the basis that the _DCBA_ had given them their imprimatur. Commerce is obviously an important part of this (as any) city but should not necessarily be given more weight than other activities carried out.


----------



## extopia (27 Feb 2006)

ninsaga said:
			
		

> What I found peculiar was the limited amount of video footage being shown...RTE replayed the same short clips 2 or 3 times....



That was probably because RTE managed to get very little footage. I'd say most of the cameramen headed for the hills once the trouble started.


----------



## fobs (27 Feb 2006)

> I'd say most of the cameramen headed for the hills once the trouble started.


 
Charlie Bird was attacked by 4 yobs and was taken to hospital so it probably wasn't safe for any cameraman to be there.


----------



## Betsy Og (27 Feb 2006)

Sadly inevitable would be my verdict. Trouble should have been expected - even on this site (and I doubt anyone here had an inside track) there was anticpation of a scumbags day out.

However, I dont think this is such a big deal, I dont really think it will do long term damage. It will give some politicians in the North something the crow about (am I bothered?) but not like they needed it. I'm thankful the parade didnt get going because if the bandsmen were assaulted then it would have been much much worse.

Maybe theres some good to come out of it - its a bit of a wake up call that the "republican" movement that has appeared to be dynamic & hard working is also/more significantly sectarian, anti-law & order.

Also, I dont think we should feel ashamed of the south just because of a few idiots - I think there was an element of mischevious intent in organising the march and while we have to try to accomodate them (lest we be accused of being anti-democratic & all the rest) we shouldnt now feel compelled to throw open the doors to all to 'make up for' Saturday. 

I think it would be more appropriate to encourage/allow a 12th of July parade at the Boyne Valley site and leave it at that - what do they want in Dublin??


----------



## ubiquitous (27 Feb 2006)

If anyone is interested in the global coverage of Saturday's events, CNN's report is here: [broken link removed]


----------



## Janet (27 Feb 2006)

Betsy Og said:
			
		

> Also, I dont think we should feel ashamed of the south just because of a few idiots - I think there was an element of mischevious intent in organising the march and while we have to try to accomodate them (lest we be accused of being anti-democratic & all the rest) we shouldnt now feel compelled to throw open the doors to all to 'make up for' Saturday.



Funny, I was just thinking on the bus on the way in to work this morning that the scenes on Saturday came much closer than anything else in the recent past to making me feel ashamed to be Irish.

Regardless of the motives behind the Love Ulster parade we have to try and accomodate them not lest we be accused of being anti-democratic but rather lest we _be_ anti-democratic.  The sight of the Orange order marching, to be completely honest, fairly sets my blood boiling (my instinctive, emotional reaction to some things surprises me at time) - but it is their right to do so and that is more important than my feelings.


----------



## demoivre (27 Feb 2006)

Janet said:
			
		

> Funny, I was just thinking on the bus on the way in to work this morning that the scenes on Saturday came much closer than anything else in the recent past to making me feel ashamed to be Irish.



I don't share your view. Most right minded people around the globe will appreciate that the perpetrators of the violence on Saturday are no different to the thugs that have caused trouble in the past at marches in London or at some of the G8 meetings - it doesn't reflect badly on Irish people generally. Personally would love to have seen dog units, horse units, baton rounds  and water canon used on the thugs and hopefully with tv coverage and cctv on the day the perpetrators will be identified and  brought to justice.


----------



## TarfHead (27 Feb 2006)

On Saturday damage done was estimated at €50K. Today's estimate is €10M. Now that's what I call inflation.
Was it just my prejudice, or was it the RTE editing, or did Celtic FC jerseys seem prominent in TV coverage of the events ? Time to make the wearing of that garment a civil offence ?
It would be illuminating to have an opportunity for the perpetrators of the disorder on Saturday to explain their political views. I'd guess it is a view of Republicanism with which I am not familiar.
Jeffrey Donaldson, on Newstalk 106 this morning, actually made one or two valid points, amid the usual hysterical rant. Maybe I'll have to start buying the Sunday Independent   ?


----------



## gearoidmm (27 Feb 2006)

TarfHead said:
			
		

> Maybe I'll have to start buying the Sunday Independent  ?


 
There's no need to lose the plot altogether


----------



## car (27 Feb 2006)

Anyone hear Mcdomhaill saying that the guards had no forewarning of the riot so they were underprepared and that noone had expected the level of trouble that occurred? 
The words dogs and street come to mind.  I was talking to several people in a bar on friday night all of whom knew that they were to avoid town on the saturday.  An unsuspecting member of the public not knowing is understandable but to say noone in authority knew is just unbelievable.


----------



## lemeister (27 Feb 2006)

Does anyone know if the Gardai used their batons against the rioters?  I suspect it was limited if they did, as it hasn't been mentioned in the news that I've heard.   I would also suspect that the May day riots was in the back of their minds and may perhaps have lead to more restraint than they should have shown the rioters.


----------



## icantbelieve (27 Feb 2006)

In my opinion this was an attack on the gardai more than any attempt to assault the marchers. If violent opposition to the marchers was their purpose then why not wait until the marchers were within range when real damage could be done. 
These were just opportunistic scum who saw that they had the numbers to take on the gardai and terrorise ordinary people, this is proven by their subsequent actions of damaging property, looting, assaulting ordinary people and willingness to engage violently with the gardai.
We saw these fools last year on St Patricks day, we will see them again this year and any other occasion that they sense an opportunity.
However, the only thing I find embarrassing are those who start and then propagate the "embarassed to be Irish" crap. Are a couple of hundred scumbags representative of us, are we that stupid that when we see riots elsewhere that we think "oh everyone in that country must be really terrible people". Were these same people embarassed when our president decided to make statements abhorred by most Irish people and to indirectly condone the segregation and second class treatment of women.
What this was was a missed opportunity. There was trouble as predicted at the start of this thread and everywhere else except garda headquarters. Who wouldn't have liked to see the gardai deal ruthlessly and efficiently with these scum, even the gardai themselves know that this was an opportunity to administer (legally) the only kind of justice these scum understand. These are the scum who perpetrate crimes everyday against ordinary people and who never get sent to prison or don't care even if they are. To have an opporunity to get a decent amount of them in one place breaking the law and not respond appropriately is the real shame here.


----------



## geri (27 Feb 2006)

car said:
			
		

> Anyone hear Mcdomhaill saying that the guards had no forewarning of the riot so they were underprepared and that noone had expected the level of trouble that occurred?
> The words dogs and street come to mind. I was talking to several people in a bar on friday night all of whom knew that they were to avoid town on the saturday. An unsuspecting member of the public not knowing is understandable but to say noone in authority knew is just unbelievable.


Totally agree, in fact a colleague of mine was told by a Taxi Driver last week that the WOTS was there was a counter protest planned and that people should avoid the city as trouble was inevitible.  How could Garda Intelligence have had no warning of this!


----------



## damson (27 Feb 2006)

TarfHead said:
			
		

> On Saturday damage done was estimated at €50K. Today's estimate is €10M. Now that's what I call inflation.


 I think the €50k is the estimate for repairs while the €10M is the estimate for lost business.



			
				lemeister said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if the Gardai used their batons against the rioters? I suspect it was limited if they did, as it hasn't been mentioned in the news that I've heard. I would also suspect that the May day riots was in the back of their minds and may perhaps have lead to more restraint than they should have shown the rioters.


 Yes, apparently the Gardaí were under specific instructions not to baton charge. There was one Garda quoted as saying (in frustration) that they might as well have been carrying bananas instead of batons, since they weren't allowed to use them!


----------



## ClubMan (27 Feb 2006)

damson said:
			
		

> There was one Garda quoted as saying (in frustration) that they might as well have been carrying bananas instead of batons, since they weren't allowed to use them!


 Since when were _Gardaí _precluded from eating bananas? 


			
				TarfHead said:
			
		

> Was it just my prejudice, or was it the RTE editing, or did Celtic FC jerseys seem prominent in TV coverage of the events ? Time to make the wearing of that garment a civil offence ?


 No - there were huge numbers of _Celtic _jersey wearing scumbags in town on Saturday from where I was on the north quays as the _Gardaí _pushed and split groups of troublemakers on the south quays and also in the general vicinity of _O'Connel Bridge/Street _etc.


> Jeffrey Donaldson, on Newstalk 106 this morning, actually made one or two valid points, amid the usual hysterical rant. Maybe I'll have to start buying the Sunday Independent   ?


 To be fair (no pun intended) to _Donaldson _he *did *say on Saturday that it was a shame that a violent *minority *prevented the march from going ahead.


			
				soc said:
			
		

> Just saw footage of the riots that happened in the city... I'm angry and disgusted!
> 
> I noticed that alot of the ones on O'Connell St, causing the problems were inner city scumbags... a person with any intelligence would have let the protest pass through, and use a bit of the ol' reverse psychology with the loyalists.
> 
> Ireland needs to clean itself up of these scumbags...


From a quick glance at today's _Irish Times _it seems that only one of the thirteen charged on Saturday night was from the inner city (_Harcourt Street_), one was no fixed abode and the rest were from the suburbs.


----------



## TarfHead (27 Feb 2006)

damson said:
			
		

> I think the €50k is the estimate for repairs while the €10M is the estimate for lost business ..


 
Gosh .. Dr. Quirkeys must do more business than I realised  ?


----------



## ClubMan (27 Feb 2006)

I believe that the _Jervis Centre_ was locked down with a combination of shoppers and troublemakers inside for several hours on Saturday. If this happened to other stores in the vicinity of _O'Connell Street _(e.g. _North Earl/Talbot/Henry Streets_) and also southside (vicinity of _Nassau/Grafton Streets_) then it could explain the seemingly high estimate put on lost business. My gut reaction would also to be skeptical about the figure but in the absence of more insight into how it was calculated it's hard to comment...


----------



## ubiquitous (27 Feb 2006)

Whoever came up with the initial €50k repairs "estimate" must have been dreaming as the figure sounded wrong from the start. The aggregate value of the cars seen burning (including one snazzy black Merc) on Saturday's 9.00 RTE news footage would alone have exceeded this amount by some distance.


----------



## ClubMan (27 Feb 2006)

I presumed that the €50K was purely for sweeping the streets etc. and the €10M included the cost of repairs to shops, lost business etc. The former figure sounds reasonable while the latter sounds inflated but, as I say, neither I nor many others here have any real insight into the details as far as I know.


----------



## Ham Slicer (27 Feb 2006)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Whoever came up with the initial €50k repairs "estimate" must have been dreaming as the figure sounded wrong from the start. The aggregate value of the cars seen burning (including one snazzy black Merc) on Saturday's 9.00 RTE news footage would alone have exceeded this amount by some distance.



I think the figure of €50K referred to the City Council bill.  So you're only talking a bit of sweeping, paving, pole replacement etc.


----------



## fobs (27 Feb 2006)

Was just wondering if a persons car that was damaged in the "riots" be covered by insurance or does insurance not cover attacks of this kind?


----------



## Humpback (27 Feb 2006)

Someone from the SFA was on Newstalk this morning and quoted a figure of €19m being the average value of business done in Dublin on any given Saturday.

Given that this was an international weekend, he said that this was normally doubled to an average of €40m on an international Saturday.

However, given that this was only a small fraction of Dublin business, closed for a few hours, on an international weekend where the match was on a Sunday, and therefore reducing the amount of business that would be done on the Saturday, it's hard to see where a full 25% drop in business can be totally be blamed on the incident.

Having said that, the advice of Gardai to stay out of city centre reduced my spend in Dublin for the international weekend by 50%, with the match being on a Sunday reducing it by a further 25%.


----------



## ClubMan (27 Feb 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> Having said that, the advice of Gardai to stay out of city centre


I never heard any _Garda _call for people to avoid the city centre on Saturday. Do you mean before or after the trouble? I was already in by the time the trouble was going on on the south quays and presumably _Nassau Street_ direction at that stage.


----------



## Humpback (27 Feb 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> I never heard any _Garda _call for people to avoid the city centre on Saturday. Do you mean before or after the trouble? I was already in by the time the trouble was going on on the south quays and presumably _Nassau Street_ direction at that stage.


 
I was in there myself earlier (round 2pm) and was set to go back in for 5.30, but my big girls blouse of a mate wouldn't go near the place.

Calls to avoid the city centre were all over the radio, Newstalk for one. And there were such calls on RTE as well. Maybe not calls directly, but quotes from the Gardai asking people not to go near city centre.


----------



## ashambles (27 Feb 2006)

The 50k figure was possibly just an example of simple journalistic innumeracy, though possibly was an early council estimate for the street furniture and equipment damaged. The cost of the damage to the cars seen burnt out on the RTE footage must have surpassed 50k by itself. I'd expect large plate glass shop windows aren't cheap to replace either.


----------



## extopia (27 Feb 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> ICalls to avoid the city centre were all over the radio...



Maybe AFTER the trouble started. AFAICR there were no advisories (except traffic advisories, perhaps) prior to the incidents.


----------



## Gordanus (27 Feb 2006)

I keep hearing different stories - I was on my way down the country, getting up-to-the-minute texts from friends in town as the riots unfolded - syaing that Saoirse, the AFAIK Sinn Fein paper, and Daily Ireland (ditto) both called for people to protest against the LOVE march.  How can they be so irresponsible if that is true? How can they hope to gain respectability?  Some of these eejits had to have organised in order for the thugs to join in and take things further - and they had to know that this would happen.  Especially as some of their supporters are thugs to start with.


----------



## extopia (27 Feb 2006)

I've just heard a pretty incredible report on Newstalk from Sean Moncrieff's roving reporter Henry McKean - reporting from the thick of the action on Saturday, interviewing Gardai, protesters, rioters, bystanders. Grim stuff. But way, way, way more informative than anything RTE seem to have done. I'm sure Charlie Bird will be kicking himself when he hears it...

The report doesn't seem to be on Newstalk's podcasts but I'm sure it will be soon. Keep an eye out for it.

(No affiliation with Newstalk, by the way).


----------



## car (27 Feb 2006)

> 'm sure Charlie Bird will be kicking himself when he hears it...


Im not sure whether you meant this in jest but do you not think he's had enough for one week?


----------



## Humpback (27 Feb 2006)

extopia said:
			
		

> But way, way, way more informative than anything RTE seem to have done. I'm sure Charlie Bird will be kicking himself when he hears it...


 
Listening and watching RTE during the afternoon, there was nothing at all about what was happening in the city centre, save for a snippet on Marianne Finnucanes programmes


----------



## Conan (27 Feb 2006)

Perhaps the only good thing to come out of Saturday's riots was that it gave an clear insight into "democracy" and " the peace process" Sinn Fein/IRA style.  
If there was ever any doubt, we now know how these "democrats" will deal with those citizens who disagree with their hijacked version of Irish Republicanism. 
Where is the "peace process" now? 
Bring on the election.


----------



## ClubMan (27 Feb 2006)

Best on on the radio was the man who observed events from _Westmoreland/D'Olier Street_. Three gougers passed him talking to each other:

*Gouger #1: *Quick - we have to get up to Leinster House.
*Gouger #2: *Where's Leinster House?!?
*Gouger #3: *Up here on Dame Street. Come on!


----------



## DrMoriarty (27 Feb 2006)

Conan said:
			
		

> Bring on the election.


Sadly, I very much doubt that many of the electorate will even remember this, when the moment comes...


----------



## extopia (27 Feb 2006)

What does it have to do with the election? I don't really think you can blame the government for the actions of a few hooligans. Nobody anticipated these events - despite what Dublin taxi drivers say (have you ever heard a taxi driver admit ignorance of _any_ subject?


----------



## ClubMan (27 Feb 2006)

extopia said:
			
		

> (have you ever heard a taxi driver admit ignorance of _any_ subject?


Correct taxi fares?


----------



## DrMoriarty (27 Feb 2006)

extopia said:
			
		

> What does it have to do with the election?


I was just responding to the '_"democracy" and " the peace process" Sinn Fein/IRA style_' comment.


----------



## Purple (28 Feb 2006)

> Gouger #1: Quick - we have to get up to Leinster House.
> Gouger #2: Where's Leinster House?!?
> Gouger #3: Up here on Dame Street. Come on!


 The impression I got was that Gouger #2 thought that "The Leinster House" was a pub...


----------



## ClubMan (28 Feb 2006)

Purple said:
			
		

> The impression I got was that Gouger #2 thought that "The Leinster House" was a pub...


 Even better! I like the soundbite from another gouger:

_"We fawt fer errr country".

_I also passed a few kids on _Ormond Quay _while the commotion on _Aston Quay _was ongoing and one was telling the others how _"Ireland is a Catholic country"_. I nearly swung for the fecker meself!


----------



## Purple (28 Feb 2006)

> one was telling the others how "Ireland is a Catholic country"


 Altar boys every one, I am sure.


----------



## extopia (28 Feb 2006)

Anyone see [broken link removed] shot from the O'Connell St live webcam on Saturday?


----------



## Humpback (28 Feb 2006)

I like the ass-covering going on today from the Gardai. 

Apparently, the reasoning behind the lack of Garda intelligence on possible trouble was because it was Celtic-supporting football hooligans rather than any other organisation. 

Isn't it the case that such intelligence gathering operations should be looking at all options? It wouldn't have taken much intelligence in the first place (as mentioned many times here already) that there was going to be trouble. 

So where the intelligence would be expected to pay off was to identify that other organisations, or groupings, were going to piggyback off the days protests?


----------



## nelly (28 Feb 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> I like the ass-covering going on today from the Gardai.
> 
> Apparently, the reasoning behind the lack of Garda intelligence on possible trouble was because it was Celtic-supporting football hooligans rather than any other organisation.
> 
> ...



My first thoughts were that the gardai (like the dog's in the street) knew and managed it badly to show up their ministers empty promises of extra manpower and forcing upon them a reserve force that will take their overtime. 
Its a joke that the Gardai are looking for the HSA to review the safety of their workplace in O'Connell st. - they were the ones who allowed the march through a glorified building site, and the best image was the female garda with the lovely long blond hair - one pull of that by a scumbag and she would have sustained shiplash and put in for a claim. 

Anyone remember the pole tax riots where the police got roasted because there were building sites on the route and rioters set fire to the scaffolding and planks etc on them. The Guards showed such poor judgement it was disgraceful.


----------



## Humpback (28 Feb 2006)

nelly said:
			
		

> Its a joke that the Gardai are looking for the HSA to review the safety of their workplace in O'Connell st. - they were the ones who allowed the march through a glorified building site,


 
From radio reports this morning, I understood the HSA were to be called in because the riot squad or whatever we call them were told not to wear their helmets, but to "go blue" and just wear baseball caps.

So, I would presume that the issue here is that Garda Management didn't carry out a hazards analysis of what was to be the workplace of the Gardai in question prior to sending them out to work in that workplace - a building site.


----------



## nelly (28 Feb 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> From radio reports this morning, I understood the HSA were to be called in because the riot squad or whatever we call them were told not to wear their helmets, but to "go blue" and just wear baseball caps.
> 
> So, I would presume that the issue here is that Garda Management didn't carry out a hazards analysis of what was to be the workplace of the Gardai in question prior to sending them out to work in that workplace - a building site.


Garda Management did not do that - i think that this is correct. However all emplloyees when issued with protective equipment are obliged to use it, and if Gardai are trained to use this riot gear they should also be trained to assess the need for it in all situations as they present themselves. 

Lets not pretend that gardai always do as they are told without question.

By the by, this reserve force will have its work cut out for it if learning on the job with some of the folks in uniform.


----------



## Purple (28 Feb 2006)

Some Gardai got hit during a riot...shock, horror!!! 
Who would have thunk it (as Bertie would say).
What a bunch a twats, calling in the HSA because they were asked to do their job. They are in charge of operational matters, not the minister. Why not get some nice old dears to give them a hug...would that sort things out for them?


----------



## Betsy Og (1 Mar 2006)

The organiser Fraser now apparently blames McAleese for the trouble - re her Nazi comments. What blatant opportunism. Wont do his sympathy rating any good.


----------



## Humpback (1 Mar 2006)

nelly said:
			
		

> Garda Management did not do that - i think that this is correct. However all emplloyees when issued with protective equipment are obliged to use it, and if Gardai are trained to use this riot gear they should also be trained to assess the need for it in all situations as they present themselves.
> 
> Lets not pretend that gardai always do as they are told without question.
> 
> By the by, this reserve force will have its work cut out for it if learning on the job with some of the folks in uniform.


 
But if they're told not to wear full riot gear (specifically helmets with full face masks) in an effort not to incite a situation they were expecting (obviously not as bad as what they got), then this again is Garda management action, and something most likely to be followed by the guards concerned.

If everything had passed off peacefully, where would all the detractors have been, complaining about Gardai being on the streets wearing full riot gear when all that was happening was a few orangemen walking down O'Connell Street?


----------



## nelly (1 Mar 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> But if they're told not to wear full riot gear (specifically helmets with full face masks) in an effort not to incite a situation they were expecting (obviously not as bad as what they got), then this again is Garda management action, and something most likely to be followed by the guards concerned.
> 
> If everything had passed off peacefully, where would all the detractors have been, complaining about Gardai being on the streets wearing full riot gear when all that was happening was a few orangemen walking down O'Connell Street?



Do you put up your unbrella when it rains or when you think it might? decision making skills and risk assessment are part of everyones brief IMHO


----------



## Humpback (1 Mar 2006)

nelly said:
			
		

> Do you put up your unbrella when it rains or when you think it might? decision making skills and risk assessment are part of everyones brief IMHO


 
And if it's raining when you're on the terrace watching a game in Landsdowne Road, do you still put up your umbrella?

If part of your decision making ability is removed because you're managers are keen not to be accused of inciting a situation, you've got no choice but to do as your told.

Or leave your umbrella down.


----------

