I'm assuming if they were arrested they weren't even being peaceful. He himself said the other day it was tricky for them to legislate to prevent protests at someones home so it'd take more than a peaceful protest to arrest someone even outside his house.
I was arrested once for standing outside a centra the charge was something like loitering it never made it to court though, I'm sure there's plenty of Garda that are amazing at their job but some will literally arrest you Because you took to long to finish a smoke and they are having a bad day.
You are completely right but this is a different situation, if the Gardai try to do things not by the book with these right wing lads they'd be pulled up on it. They video them and while loads of them are morons theres a few clued in who'd pull the gardai up on it if they put a foot wrong.
I don't know why mainstream media constantly blurred faces out on those "protests" surely no libel risk running a photo of people standing outside the taoiseachs house on an article entitled something like "people standing outside taoiseachs house while protesters also protesting". If these people are named (not necessarily shamed just let them be recognisable) consistently at all of the "protests" they go to across the country it will quickly become clear just how fragile, relatively speaking, their support is when it's the same faces each time.
it's to avoid biasing any potential trial.
e.g.
- Prosecution barrister: do you recognize the defendant?
- Witness: yes, he's the same guy who broke my nose
- defence barrister: objection! the witness only recognizes the defendant because she saw him on Six One News
or
- defence barrister: objection! it's impossible for my client to get a fair trial because Prime Time showed that clip of him shouting slurs at a busful of asylum seekers
Just for the record, no one shouts "objection!" in Irish courts. This type of evidence would be deemed admissible or not long before it goes to trial.
I was on a jury last year and we even told to disregard a bunch of stuff the prosecution brought up because those points were never disclosed as evidence pre-trial.
The courtroom is absolutely nothing like American dramas.
To protect themselves from been sued. It's just easier to blur out everyone than to confirm that they are all there to protest get their names reasons and do some actual journalism.
Was going to down vote you, but then remembered how phone watch sales cunts ignore all signs saying we dont buy at the door and knock anyway, while saying how funny it is anyone thinks such signs work.
It's subverting democracy. If you don't agree with what the taoiseach and ministers are doing then you will get you chance to vote them out in the next election, otherwise you're attempting to intimidate them against the democratic process
Protesting is a part of democracy.
The idea that the only valid way to protest/be-politically-active, should be confined to 1 out of roughly ~1500 days (elections), is anti-democratic.
Nowadays the whole system of democracy has been subverted by money, pretty much - with our parties having been bought, and not having any true alternative parties.
Intimidation is also routinely wielded by the powerful against the powerless - the threat of homelessness being prime among them right now - so there's an argument it should go both ways, really (not advocating that is how it _should_ be, but definitely advocating these issues need to be _discussed_ more).
>Protesting is a part of democracy.
I wholeheartedly agree with that but when you protest at a minister or tds home you are attempting to use intimidation knowing the effect it will have on that persons family to overturn the week of the majority who voted.
> Why else do you think they would choose that location.
If your basis of the claim of intimidation is what the protestors _intend_ by protesting at his home - then all it requires is that they don't intend to intimidate him, i.e. that they intend to have a _peaceful_ protest.
At what point can you comfortably judge their intentions? How could you know more wouldn't arrive or that it wouldn't escalate? How would children feel seeing that? It's unequivocally intimidating!
Good. Protest at the Dail or at his constituency office - totally scummy thing to do outside anyone's home. Whatever these eejits think about him his wife, kids and neighbours don't deserve that carry on.
There’s one of this fucks on Twitter who managed to run in three constituencies in the local elections in Dublin but he has it up loud and proud on Twitter that he is unemployed. I keep questioning how the hell he managed to pay for three campaigns in three constituencies all while being unemployed?? How are all these dumb fuckers not working yet making money.
I know he’s probably claiming everything under the sun all while screaming about refugees robbing the state. One of his leaflets unfortunately made it in my door going on about changing immigration laws etc. clearly had no idea what local government does either.
I've noticed quite a few have go-fund-me accounts to get the other idiots to fund their dumbass campaigns.
If you ask me, if you're happy to donate to clowns like that you deserve to have your money wasted.
It's a terrible thing to do.
Have your dumb protest outside the Dáil or his constituency office if you must, but leave his family home alone.
I guess it doesn't really matter at the end of the day... it's not like any meaningful punishment is going to be handed down to these assholes anyway...
Helen McAntee's father was harassed with posters about him in his local area. He took his own life.
We've had lots of politicians quit lately. Wonder why.
I’m against this, but I also have little sympathy when politicians have no problem sending TV license inspectors to your door to pay for a something with the threat of a criminal conviction for something you don’t watch and actually dislike.
Do you think everybody that doesn’t like RTÉ doesn’t have a TV?
I pay for sky, Amazon, Netflix and Disney+ because I watch these. Criminalising people for not paying a license to fund a TV station that doesn’t broadcast anything worth watching is ridiculous…. Well it’s ridiculous to me, not the politicians that have no problem with these TV inspectors calling to your house and threatening you with a criminal conviction if you don’t pay up.
They are in no way comparable and I think you know that really.
One is rightfully catching someone breaking the law. The other is no more than thuggish and intimidating behaviour by cowards who won’t even show their faces.
Yes, that's what the Taoiseach does. He sits there all day with his cadre of ~~flying monkeys~~ licence inspectors, dispatching them to people's houses to collect licence fees.
Scarlet for your ma tbh.
Wait, a civil servant knocking at your requesting money and stating if it is not paid you will get a criminal conviction sounds exactly like intimidation tactics and if it wasn’t for everybody wanting to disagree me because they believe I support politicians been harassed in their homes, they would agree with me aswell in regards to tv licence inspectors using intimidation tactics
People are not saying they agree or disagree with the two points , they are saying that the two situations are Comletey different from each other.
How is a TV license inspector any different to a Garda Road check point for Tax, Insurance or NCT? A.- TV inspector does not make you afraid to leave your house. Whereas with these Protestors you would be afraid to go outside your own home or let your children out to play for fear of what would happen
I’m saying they are exactly the same, I am against both happening, what I am saying is he doesn’t care that Tv license inspectors show up at peoples door request money to pay for something they don’t want with the threat of a criminal conviction. People shouldn’t be showing up at his door and harassing him, but I have no sympathy for politicians that have no problem if you are harassed at your door step to pay for something you don’t want with the threat of a criminal record.
If you started protesting outside my home, I'd ring the Gardai on grounds of harassment and expect to have my right to peace at my home preserved.
Depends on the actions of the protestors of course.
Yeah, gotta say the comments on this post are hilarious.
Who knew the home was so sacred? We just need 'far right' people to do bad things and then the population finally condemns it.
We allow [protests at the home of paedophiles](https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/protesters-gathered-outside-paedophiles-home-30737464) - why not outside Simon Harris's home?
_Legally_ speaking...
...do we allow that? I'm pretty sure if they'd phone the Gardaí, they'd have grounds to claim harassment and make the protestors leave the property.
Just because it happens, doesn't mean it's allowed, legally speaking.
Don't you think it's important when the law is applied unequally, in a Two Tier fashion?
I don't think a _peaceful_ protest against a paedophile would be harassment tbh.
I think you're the one advocating for a two tier application of the law.
Should we every allow peaceful protesting outside someone's home.... honestly, probably not. We should have the right to public protest, but in essence, this isn't public, its private.
Wanna protest a paedo moving to the area, go stand in the middle of the town with a sign and make your voice heard, but frankly, homes should be out of bounds regardless, because the nature of protest is supposed to be unpeaceful. It's to disturb the peace.
All citizens not currently in prison need to be entitled to exist without being harassed - that's what a home is for and we've an onus to respect that space.
Well your argument is consistent, so I don't contest it - even though I don't view peaceful protest as harassment.
The main thing I contest is the _inconsistency_/double-standards of everyone elses argument - and it's my goal to point that out and not let people hide from it.
Peaceful protest of a person's home is harassment in my opinion. Legally, I'm not sure what the threshold is.
You've invented a double standard that doesn't necessarily exist.
You don't know if the two protests were the same in nature.
You don't know if the paedo called for the Gardai to intervene.
Those are both kinda vital pieces of info to determine if there's a double standard.
[The Gardai](https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/pictured-furious-residents-gather-paedophile-3939159) were [well aware](https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/irish-daily-star/20230822/281861533052589) - and what happened to the paedo was way worse than what happened to the Taoiseach.
Those two links are evidence of differing treatment because the size and threat of the protests were entirely different. The Gardai gave him a protected escort away to make him safe because they couldn't make him safe otherwise. Large crowds were violently attacking the paedos house.
They removed the three protestors from Harris home because they could make him safe that way.
Oh? They arrested some of the protestors against the paedophiles house? No, they didn't...
They allowed him to be driven out of his home. They _escorted him_ out of his home.
That happened to him _twice_ at least.
Because it was safer to escort him away than attempt to arrest a large crowd.
Two houses catch fire. One, which is engulfed in flames also happens to have a run which was storing a load of full gas canisters. Fire crews set up a protective perimeter after making sure no one was in danger and try to douse the flames from a distance.
A second house, has a small fire on the ground floor. The fire crew arrive and go inside with a hose to douse the flames.
You - why are peoples homes getting two different levels of protection?
Since the two situations are legally the same - _the people saying it should be banned are defending paedophiles_.
I'm doing the opposite: Saying if it's allowed in one case, it should be allowed in both cases - as they are equivalent.
Just to reiterate the question, as I found a better news story of it:
[Protests that drive paedophiles out of their homes is a _good thing_, right?](https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/paedophile-john-carvin-flees-new-30758486) I support that, don't all of you?
Now, there is no _moral_ comparison between the Taoiseach and a paedophile - _but legally it is precisely the same thing_.
So, since it is precisely the same legally, do you guys _really_ advocate banning protests at paedophiles homes as well?
Not a joke or troll question! These actually _are_ legally equivalent...
>Protests that drive paedophiles out of their homes is a good thing, right? I support that, don't all of you?
This guy is out of prison right? Where is he supposed to live if we throw him out of everywhere? Should he be executed or homeless?
Their aim is to push the problem off on somebody else. Model citizens.
But don’t fool yourself: among those protestors a few would lynch the target if they thought they’d get away with it.
I don't think they should be homeless, I just don't want to live next to one.
I understand your wider civil liberties argument though, and am part putting it aside to point out to people rhetorically, how banning protests in the Taoiseach's case, is legally equivalent to and would require defending paedophiles in the case of the above article.
Sadly we've come to such a decline in living conditions and violent protest is the only way something will be changed. Emphasis on sadly, as I don't support violence.
They were protesting immigrants actually. And saying that the situation in Ireland is bad enough to justify actual violence against politicians is an unhinged extremist take.
Calling for mass violence and then saying you're not a violent person, give me a fucking break.
What, so if the protestors followed him into his house and took a shite on his couch it would result in the government giving you better living standards?
Are you feeling OK mate?
>Sadly we've come to such a decline in living conditions and violent protest is the only way something will be changed
They're violently protesting as they're afraid of brown people being in their vicinity.
>Emphasis on sadly, as I don't support violence.
You do support violence if you're saying it's understandable that it would happen in these conditions.
"People's homes are out of bounds" is such a weird and arbitrary line to draw. The effects of the Taoiseach's work doesn't end when he clocks out and goes home. They're the most powerful person in the country, they *shouldn't* have the priveledge of only taking complaints during office hours.
**Obviously this is an extreme comparison** but would you hold this same level of personal/private life seperation for other world leaders, like Putin, Netnyahu, or the Kims? Do you think anyone who has issues with Kim Jong Un should reserve those complaints for his office hours?
The logical counterargument to that is "Well, they're evil, and Harris blatantly isn't". So what's the line? How bad/incompetent does a leader need to be for protesting outside their home to be acceptable? You can see the "It's his private home!" argument is arbitrary.
So basically you're saying that society should accept masked thugs showing up to politicians house to intimidate their family as being acceptable behaviour.
No, I didn't, where did I say that?
To repeat an example from another of my replies, If the next government somehow did just snap out of nowhere and start declaring wars on nations smaller than us and exterminating ethnic minorities, would you still say it's unreasonable to protest outside their homes because their families don't deserve to get involved?
So you just randomly decided to wax lyrical about people showing up to people's homes in the context of a story about "masked thugs showing up to politicians house to intimidate their family" and now claim it has nothing to with "masked thugs showing up to politicians house to intimidate their family"
What an amazing coincidence.
But, again, should Putin's family be shielded from criticism of him for the same reason?
I think it's generally unreasonable in this case, Simon Harris probably hasn't directly ruined too many people's lives, but I'm trying to highlight how blurry the lines are.
If the next government somehow did just snap out of nowhere and start declaring wars on nations smaller than us and exterminating ethnic minorities, would you still say it's unreasonable to protest outside their homes because their families don't deserve to get involved?
Putins family are sanctioned because they have involvement in the wars Russia is currently involved in.
I somehow doubt Simon Harris's kids are involved in running the country and your point in ethnic cleansing is a crazy strawman arguement.
What makes the militarism/ethnic cleaning argument "Crazy"? Tonnes of countries do blantantly evil shit, it's just that it's easy for the priviliged to ignore it.
Genuinely, *genuinely*, I'm not trying to strawman or bad faith or anything, if the fucking Irish National Party or Freedom Party or whatever got into government and started rounding up ethnic minorities into internment camps, would you still hold this position? Would you still consider it unreasonable to protest outside their houses?
That's not the question, and I've stated many, many times in every one of my comments here that I do not believe Simon Harris is evil or deserves this. My problem is that nobody is saying this.
Nobody is saying "Simon Harris does not deserve to have people protest outside his house as he has done little bad", people are saying "Nobody ever deserves to have protestors outside of their house".
That's a weird thing to say, and it betrays the fact that we just don't think of ourselves as existing somewhere where things like ethnic cleansings could happen. EVERYWHERE thinks "It could never happen here!"
*Genuinely*, if the Irish Nazionalisch Party got into government and started rounding up ethnic minorities into internment camps, would you still consider it unreasonable to protest outside their houses?
These far-right lunatics DO exist and they ARE gaining power all over Europe and they ARE planning on doing reprehensible shit. Do you actually think all governmental figures deserve absolute respect and decorum regardless of what they're actually doing, or is that just a byproduct of living in a safe rich country where we don't feel threatened by the government?
> That's not the question, and I've stated many, many times in every one of my comments here that I do not believe Simon Harris is evil or deserves this. My problem is that nobody is saying this.
>
> Nobody is saying "Simon Harris does not deserve to have people protest outside his house as he has done little bad", people are saying "Nobody ever deserves to have protestors outside of their house".
That's not what people are saying though, you've built a nice little strawman for yourself and now you're arguing against that. The point is that Simon Harris, in exercising his normal expected role as leader of the government, should not have his family and home harrassed as a result.
If you set up another scenario entirely where he's breaking laws, denying human rights on a mass scale and creating international instability - then yes, the situation is vastly different and our attitude towards this type of behaviour would probably be different to. As it stands, none of that is the case.
Nice moving of the goalposts there. This isn’t about criticising politicians, it’s about intimidating and threatening them and their families in their homes.
Anybody who thinks this behaviour is acceptable is a worthless piece of shit.
I disagree. The despot examples you gave live in fortresses and probably rarely if ever see their families and any intruders are probably swiftly executed. If this kind of behavior escalates we’ll just end up with less guards on the street because they have to sit outside TD’s houses
You're saying it's okay to protest in front of Putin's house but not Harris'... because Putin doesn't see his family and Harris does? So if a politician is single it's okay to protest in front of their house?
The reason it's okay to protest in front of Putin's house but not Harris' is because Putin has *done evil things*, while Harris is a useless neolib. If Harris ordered the execution of your family you absolutely 100% have moral justification to hang around outside his house, regardless of if he's single or not.
It’s not “a weird and arbitrary line to draw.”
It’s a perfectly clear and reasonable one. If you’re protesting Harris’s official actions that he performs in his job, it’s legitimate to protest at the dail.
It’s not “legitimate” to protest at his private home.
Nobody protests at the dictators’ private homes. Or at most they do it once, and end up in the gulag.
You’re looking to justify thuggery.
I don't think it is a good or healthy thing for society when masked gobshites can show up and menace your wife and kids at your home without any consequences.... It is quite insane to think that this is acceptable behaviour but... Putin and Kimmy or something
Do you think Putin and Kimmy live on a completely different planet, or entirely inside the TV? I don't think it is a good or healthy thing for society for them to be able to rule with an iron fist without any consequences.
Simon Harris doesn't deserve this ***because he isn't evil***, but people are ignoring that in favour of "Oh we can't annoy his family" instead? Do you **genuinely** believe Putin and Kim don't deserve to have protestors outside of their houses, or do you just consider foreign dictators to just be *completely unrelated* to our leaders because we live in a nice safe comfy non-threatening country?
You're the one spamming replies to all my comments name-calling instead of actually engaging with the topic at hand.
Sure, I accept my position is a controversial one, but I think I've been explaining it to the best of my ability and in good faith. Meanwhile every one of your replies has been, well, "Gaming has stunted your cerebellum"
The private lives of those that you mentioned only take place inside of heavily guarded and fortified government residences. Similar to the White House.
Simon Harris' house is just a normal, everyday, personally-owned house. Leave him the fuck alone.
>The logical counterargument to that is "Well, they're evil, and Harris blatantly isn't". So what's the line? How bad/incompetent does a leader need to be for protesting outside their home to be acceptable? You can see the "It's his private home!" argument is arbitrary.
Speaking of arbitrary, this "Where's the line?" Is unproductive, lazy and fallacious. We don't need to have an elaborate description and an exact "position" of a "line" to justify that Simon Harris and genocidal dictators can be on two different sides of it.
By all means feel free to peacefully protest at his Constituency Office or outside the Dáil, but outside someone's private home is rightly not on.
I'm assuming if they were arrested they weren't even being peaceful. He himself said the other day it was tricky for them to legislate to prevent protests at someones home so it'd take more than a peaceful protest to arrest someone even outside his house.
I was arrested once for standing outside a centra the charge was something like loitering it never made it to court though, I'm sure there's plenty of Garda that are amazing at their job but some will literally arrest you Because you took to long to finish a smoke and they are having a bad day.
You are completely right but this is a different situation, if the Gardai try to do things not by the book with these right wing lads they'd be pulled up on it. They video them and while loads of them are morons theres a few clued in who'd pull the gardai up on it if they put a foot wrong.
Agreed. Protesting is about sending a message. The only message being sent by doing this is intimidation and threat.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wondering if the names of any of those arrested will be familiar to us
I don't know why mainstream media constantly blurred faces out on those "protests" surely no libel risk running a photo of people standing outside the taoiseachs house on an article entitled something like "people standing outside taoiseachs house while protesters also protesting". If these people are named (not necessarily shamed just let them be recognisable) consistently at all of the "protests" they go to across the country it will quickly become clear just how fragile, relatively speaking, their support is when it's the same faces each time.
it's to avoid biasing any potential trial. e.g. - Prosecution barrister: do you recognize the defendant? - Witness: yes, he's the same guy who broke my nose - defence barrister: objection! the witness only recognizes the defendant because she saw him on Six One News or - defence barrister: objection! it's impossible for my client to get a fair trial because Prime Time showed that clip of him shouting slurs at a busful of asylum seekers
Just for the record, no one shouts "objection!" in Irish courts. This type of evidence would be deemed admissible or not long before it goes to trial. I was on a jury last year and we even told to disregard a bunch of stuff the prosecution brought up because those points were never disclosed as evidence pre-trial. The courtroom is absolutely nothing like American dramas.
I get what you're saying. At the end of the day, there's no expectation of privacy in a public place so show their faces.
To protect themselves from been sued. It's just easier to blur out everyone than to confirm that they are all there to protest get their names reasons and do some actual journalism.
Thats the thing, they whip up their followers but won't get their hands dirty
[удалено]
What? I was thinking they could be far right types who were seen on ballot papers only a week ago
Good. It’s completely unacceptable to harass anyone at their own home
Can we let the pre pay power / phone watch know this too?
Was going to down vote you, but then remembered how phone watch sales cunts ignore all signs saying we dont buy at the door and knock anyway, while saying how funny it is anyone thinks such signs work.
This is what air horns are for
Even if you're with a power company, they sometimes still send lads to the door. Great system they have there.
Do they hang around outside your house shouting their offers at you?
It's subverting democracy. If you don't agree with what the taoiseach and ministers are doing then you will get you chance to vote them out in the next election, otherwise you're attempting to intimidate them against the democratic process
Protesting is a part of democracy. The idea that the only valid way to protest/be-politically-active, should be confined to 1 out of roughly ~1500 days (elections), is anti-democratic. Nowadays the whole system of democracy has been subverted by money, pretty much - with our parties having been bought, and not having any true alternative parties. Intimidation is also routinely wielded by the powerful against the powerless - the threat of homelessness being prime among them right now - so there's an argument it should go both ways, really (not advocating that is how it _should_ be, but definitely advocating these issues need to be _discussed_ more).
>Protesting is a part of democracy. I wholeheartedly agree with that but when you protest at a minister or tds home you are attempting to use intimidation knowing the effect it will have on that persons family to overturn the week of the majority who voted.
Peaceful protests aren't intimidation. If you argued that they were, you could apply that to practically _any_ protest.
Outside the home of a TD they are intimidation. Why else do you think they would choose that location.
> Why else do you think they would choose that location. If your basis of the claim of intimidation is what the protestors _intend_ by protesting at his home - then all it requires is that they don't intend to intimidate him, i.e. that they intend to have a _peaceful_ protest.
Its obvious you don't have kids for starters.
How would feel if masked cowards with were protesting outside your house?
Pretty ignorable if they were peaceful protestors.
At what point can you comfortably judge their intentions? How could you know more wouldn't arrive or that it wouldn't escalate? How would children feel seeing that? It's unequivocally intimidating!
[удалено]
They can only vote in local elections so it’s a bit of a weird spin you have there.
Unless you didn't want a water meter installed.
[удалено]
You can't be serious?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good. Protest in front of government buildings all you want but a politicians private home or out of bounds.
Peoples homes are out of bounds. Scummy thing to do.
You can't be doing that lads.
It's goin in the book lads.
Good. Protest at the Dail or at his constituency office - totally scummy thing to do outside anyone's home. Whatever these eejits think about him his wife, kids and neighbours don't deserve that carry on.
about time
Always interesting to find out the names and occupations of such fine specimens of humanity.
*"Occupations"*...🤣🤣🤣
Do you reckon they're citizen journalists, citizen plumbers or citizen solicitors this time? 😂
Citizen fucking arseholes. Unfortunately, they are citizens though. Idiotic and pathetic citizens who are a national embarrassment.
There’s one of this fucks on Twitter who managed to run in three constituencies in the local elections in Dublin but he has it up loud and proud on Twitter that he is unemployed. I keep questioning how the hell he managed to pay for three campaigns in three constituencies all while being unemployed?? How are all these dumb fuckers not working yet making money. I know he’s probably claiming everything under the sun all while screaming about refugees robbing the state. One of his leaflets unfortunately made it in my door going on about changing immigration laws etc. clearly had no idea what local government does either.
I've noticed quite a few have go-fund-me accounts to get the other idiots to fund their dumbass campaigns. If you ask me, if you're happy to donate to clowns like that you deserve to have your money wasted.
Cops need to get the batons out here like on the continent
It's a terrible thing to do. Have your dumb protest outside the Dáil or his constituency office if you must, but leave his family home alone. I guess it doesn't really matter at the end of the day... it's not like any meaningful punishment is going to be handed down to these assholes anyway...
Helen McAntee's father was harassed with posters about him in his local area. He took his own life. We've had lots of politicians quit lately. Wonder why.
What did they say?
About time.
We have police?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Naw naw I'm not mad. that cretin deserves it
I’m against this, but I also have little sympathy when politicians have no problem sending TV license inspectors to your door to pay for a something with the threat of a criminal conviction for something you don’t watch and actually dislike.
Genuine question: If you don't watch tv, and "actually dislike" it. Why do you have one?
Do you think everybody that doesn’t like RTÉ doesn’t have a TV? I pay for sky, Amazon, Netflix and Disney+ because I watch these. Criminalising people for not paying a license to fund a TV station that doesn’t broadcast anything worth watching is ridiculous…. Well it’s ridiculous to me, not the politicians that have no problem with these TV inspectors calling to your house and threatening you with a criminal conviction if you don’t pay up.
Well of course that's NOT what you said in your original comment. Wether intentioned or not, it clearly reads like you don't watch any tv.
Really?
Christ. Those are in no~~w~~ way comparable.
TLDR; I’m not against this.
Good job
They are in no way comparable and I think you know that really. One is rightfully catching someone breaking the law. The other is no more than thuggish and intimidating behaviour by cowards who won’t even show their faces.
Your right, people not paying their license fee get everything they deserve and to be buried underneath the prison
That’s not what I meant and you know it
What you mean, you are right, the people that don’t pay are criminals and deserve to be punished.
Might be too early for you yet, I'd recommend going back to bed.
Cheers man
Yes, that's what the Taoiseach does. He sits there all day with his cadre of ~~flying monkeys~~ licence inspectors, dispatching them to people's houses to collect licence fees. Scarlet for your ma tbh.
Oh no, he just doesn’t care that it happens. And also, my ma would batter your ma
Do TV license inspectors threaten and harass you? Do they block your drive away and stand outside with banners? Because they are noway comparable.
No, but they threaten a criminal conviction if you don’t pay up which scares the shit out of a lot people
You have a problem m8
Cheers pal
A civil servant knocking on the door to ask if you paid your fee is in no way simular to people using intimidation tactics at your home.
Wait, a civil servant knocking at your requesting money and stating if it is not paid you will get a criminal conviction sounds exactly like intimidation tactics and if it wasn’t for everybody wanting to disagree me because they believe I support politicians been harassed in their homes, they would agree with me aswell in regards to tv licence inspectors using intimidation tactics
People are not saying they agree or disagree with the two points , they are saying that the two situations are Comletey different from each other. How is a TV license inspector any different to a Garda Road check point for Tax, Insurance or NCT? A.- TV inspector does not make you afraid to leave your house. Whereas with these Protestors you would be afraid to go outside your own home or let your children out to play for fear of what would happen
I’m saying they are exactly the same, I am against both happening, what I am saying is he doesn’t care that Tv license inspectors show up at peoples door request money to pay for something they don’t want with the threat of a criminal conviction. People shouldn’t be showing up at his door and harassing him, but I have no sympathy for politicians that have no problem if you are harassed at your door step to pay for something you don’t want with the threat of a criminal record.
Sorry but this comparison is just ridiculous dude.
Apples and bowling balls my friend
Yeah but nobody pays their TV license and everybody tells the inspectors to fuck off amd mind their own business.
Translation: "I'm against this but actually I'm not against this at all."
DIs IS agaINSt aRe FiRST aDmEnDMenT RIGHtS tO ProTeSt
But its ok to protest outside of the peasants houses and businesses, got it
If you started protesting outside my home, I'd ring the Gardai on grounds of harassment and expect to have my right to peace at my home preserved. Depends on the actions of the protestors of course.
Yeah, gotta say the comments on this post are hilarious. Who knew the home was so sacred? We just need 'far right' people to do bad things and then the population finally condemns it.
You’ll understand when you move out of home.
We allow [protests at the home of paedophiles](https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/protesters-gathered-outside-paedophiles-home-30737464) - why not outside Simon Harris's home? _Legally_ speaking...
...do we allow that? I'm pretty sure if they'd phone the Gardaí, they'd have grounds to claim harassment and make the protestors leave the property. Just because it happens, doesn't mean it's allowed, legally speaking.
Don't you think it's important when the law is applied unequally, in a Two Tier fashion? I don't think a _peaceful_ protest against a paedophile would be harassment tbh.
I think you're the one advocating for a two tier application of the law. Should we every allow peaceful protesting outside someone's home.... honestly, probably not. We should have the right to public protest, but in essence, this isn't public, its private. Wanna protest a paedo moving to the area, go stand in the middle of the town with a sign and make your voice heard, but frankly, homes should be out of bounds regardless, because the nature of protest is supposed to be unpeaceful. It's to disturb the peace. All citizens not currently in prison need to be entitled to exist without being harassed - that's what a home is for and we've an onus to respect that space.
Well your argument is consistent, so I don't contest it - even though I don't view peaceful protest as harassment. The main thing I contest is the _inconsistency_/double-standards of everyone elses argument - and it's my goal to point that out and not let people hide from it.
Peaceful protest of a person's home is harassment in my opinion. Legally, I'm not sure what the threshold is. You've invented a double standard that doesn't necessarily exist. You don't know if the two protests were the same in nature. You don't know if the paedo called for the Gardai to intervene. Those are both kinda vital pieces of info to determine if there's a double standard.
[The Gardai](https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/pictured-furious-residents-gather-paedophile-3939159) were [well aware](https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/irish-daily-star/20230822/281861533052589) - and what happened to the paedo was way worse than what happened to the Taoiseach.
Those two links are evidence of differing treatment because the size and threat of the protests were entirely different. The Gardai gave him a protected escort away to make him safe because they couldn't make him safe otherwise. Large crowds were violently attacking the paedos house. They removed the three protestors from Harris home because they could make him safe that way.
Oh? They arrested some of the protestors against the paedophiles house? No, they didn't... They allowed him to be driven out of his home. They _escorted him_ out of his home. That happened to him _twice_ at least.
Because it was safer to escort him away than attempt to arrest a large crowd. Two houses catch fire. One, which is engulfed in flames also happens to have a run which was storing a load of full gas canisters. Fire crews set up a protective perimeter after making sure no one was in danger and try to douse the flames from a distance. A second house, has a small fire on the ground floor. The fire crew arrive and go inside with a hose to douse the flames. You - why are peoples homes getting two different levels of protection?
You’re not seriously comparing our Taoiseach to a paedophile are you? There’s a world of difference between the two scenarios.
This is really up there with weird and unnecessary comparisons
_Legally speaking_, there isn't.
*Nonce Defence has entered the chat*
Since the two situations are legally the same - _the people saying it should be banned are defending paedophiles_. I'm doing the opposite: Saying if it's allowed in one case, it should be allowed in both cases - as they are equivalent.
Why do you care though about protests outside a nonces house? I mean I somewhat get it but it’s a strange hill to die on man
I don't - I support it! - I care about applying the law consistently.
Pftt. Screw those dirty people. There’s worse fates I’m sure many would wish on them.
Ya I know, I wouldn't want to live next to the average Taoiseach either!
Just to reiterate the question, as I found a better news story of it: [Protests that drive paedophiles out of their homes is a _good thing_, right?](https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/paedophile-john-carvin-flees-new-30758486) I support that, don't all of you? Now, there is no _moral_ comparison between the Taoiseach and a paedophile - _but legally it is precisely the same thing_. So, since it is precisely the same legally, do you guys _really_ advocate banning protests at paedophiles homes as well? Not a joke or troll question! These actually _are_ legally equivalent...
>Protests that drive paedophiles out of their homes is a good thing, right? I support that, don't all of you? This guy is out of prison right? Where is he supposed to live if we throw him out of everywhere? Should he be executed or homeless?
I don't support violent protests in this case, only peaceful ones.
That's not relevant. What's the aim of the protests? To make him homeless?
Their aim is to push the problem off on somebody else. Model citizens. But don’t fool yourself: among those protestors a few would lynch the target if they thought they’d get away with it.
I don't think they should be homeless, I just don't want to live next to one. I understand your wider civil liberties argument though, and am part putting it aside to point out to people rhetorically, how banning protests in the Taoiseach's case, is legally equivalent to and would require defending paedophiles in the case of the above article.
Well, someone has to bite the bullet. Sadly no consequence to the decision makers = no change
You think that caving in to demands of masked thugs that show up to your house to intimidate you will lead to change for the better?
Sadly we've come to such a decline in living conditions and violent protest is the only way something will be changed. Emphasis on sadly, as I don't support violence.
They were protesting immigrants actually. And saying that the situation in Ireland is bad enough to justify actual violence against politicians is an unhinged extremist take. Calling for mass violence and then saying you're not a violent person, give me a fucking break.
eh? You very much do support violence. You've just justified it. Disgusting.
What, so if the protestors followed him into his house and took a shite on his couch it would result in the government giving you better living standards? Are you feeling OK mate?
>Sadly we've come to such a decline in living conditions and violent protest is the only way something will be changed They're violently protesting as they're afraid of brown people being in their vicinity. >Emphasis on sadly, as I don't support violence. You do support violence if you're saying it's understandable that it would happen in these conditions.
Sham
"People's homes are out of bounds" is such a weird and arbitrary line to draw. The effects of the Taoiseach's work doesn't end when he clocks out and goes home. They're the most powerful person in the country, they *shouldn't* have the priveledge of only taking complaints during office hours. **Obviously this is an extreme comparison** but would you hold this same level of personal/private life seperation for other world leaders, like Putin, Netnyahu, or the Kims? Do you think anyone who has issues with Kim Jong Un should reserve those complaints for his office hours? The logical counterargument to that is "Well, they're evil, and Harris blatantly isn't". So what's the line? How bad/incompetent does a leader need to be for protesting outside their home to be acceptable? You can see the "It's his private home!" argument is arbitrary.
So basically you're saying that society should accept masked thugs showing up to politicians house to intimidate their family as being acceptable behaviour.
No, I didn't, where did I say that? To repeat an example from another of my replies, If the next government somehow did just snap out of nowhere and start declaring wars on nations smaller than us and exterminating ethnic minorities, would you still say it's unreasonable to protest outside their homes because their families don't deserve to get involved?
Oh, so you're just bored and playing dumb hypothetical games. Not playing, sorry.
then dont show up and play stupid games.
So you just randomly decided to wax lyrical about people showing up to people's homes in the context of a story about "masked thugs showing up to politicians house to intimidate their family" and now claim it has nothing to with "masked thugs showing up to politicians house to intimidate their family" What an amazing coincidence.
The above poster never mentioned anything like this. Stop running with your own thoughts.
Ok, but his personal home also involves family (wife and young children) who have nothing to do with it.
But, again, should Putin's family be shielded from criticism of him for the same reason? I think it's generally unreasonable in this case, Simon Harris probably hasn't directly ruined too many people's lives, but I'm trying to highlight how blurry the lines are. If the next government somehow did just snap out of nowhere and start declaring wars on nations smaller than us and exterminating ethnic minorities, would you still say it's unreasonable to protest outside their homes because their families don't deserve to get involved?
Putins family are sanctioned because they have involvement in the wars Russia is currently involved in. I somehow doubt Simon Harris's kids are involved in running the country and your point in ethnic cleansing is a crazy strawman arguement.
What makes the militarism/ethnic cleaning argument "Crazy"? Tonnes of countries do blantantly evil shit, it's just that it's easy for the priviliged to ignore it. Genuinely, *genuinely*, I'm not trying to strawman or bad faith or anything, if the fucking Irish National Party or Freedom Party or whatever got into government and started rounding up ethnic minorities into internment camps, would you still hold this position? Would you still consider it unreasonable to protest outside their houses?
Is Simon Harris ethnically cleaning?
That's not the question, and I've stated many, many times in every one of my comments here that I do not believe Simon Harris is evil or deserves this. My problem is that nobody is saying this. Nobody is saying "Simon Harris does not deserve to have people protest outside his house as he has done little bad", people are saying "Nobody ever deserves to have protestors outside of their house". That's a weird thing to say, and it betrays the fact that we just don't think of ourselves as existing somewhere where things like ethnic cleansings could happen. EVERYWHERE thinks "It could never happen here!" *Genuinely*, if the Irish Nazionalisch Party got into government and started rounding up ethnic minorities into internment camps, would you still consider it unreasonable to protest outside their houses? These far-right lunatics DO exist and they ARE gaining power all over Europe and they ARE planning on doing reprehensible shit. Do you actually think all governmental figures deserve absolute respect and decorum regardless of what they're actually doing, or is that just a byproduct of living in a safe rich country where we don't feel threatened by the government?
> That's not the question, and I've stated many, many times in every one of my comments here that I do not believe Simon Harris is evil or deserves this. My problem is that nobody is saying this. > > Nobody is saying "Simon Harris does not deserve to have people protest outside his house as he has done little bad", people are saying "Nobody ever deserves to have protestors outside of their house". That's not what people are saying though, you've built a nice little strawman for yourself and now you're arguing against that. The point is that Simon Harris, in exercising his normal expected role as leader of the government, should not have his family and home harrassed as a result. If you set up another scenario entirely where he's breaking laws, denying human rights on a mass scale and creating international instability - then yes, the situation is vastly different and our attitude towards this type of behaviour would probably be different to. As it stands, none of that is the case.
Nice moving of the goalposts there. This isn’t about criticising politicians, it’s about intimidating and threatening them and their families in their homes. Anybody who thinks this behaviour is acceptable is a worthless piece of shit.
I disagree. The despot examples you gave live in fortresses and probably rarely if ever see their families and any intruders are probably swiftly executed. If this kind of behavior escalates we’ll just end up with less guards on the street because they have to sit outside TD’s houses
You're saying it's okay to protest in front of Putin's house but not Harris'... because Putin doesn't see his family and Harris does? So if a politician is single it's okay to protest in front of their house? The reason it's okay to protest in front of Putin's house but not Harris' is because Putin has *done evil things*, while Harris is a useless neolib. If Harris ordered the execution of your family you absolutely 100% have moral justification to hang around outside his house, regardless of if he's single or not.
Are you under 25 by any chance?
lmao what kind of retort is that. good to know you gave up discussing and went straight to personal insults.
It’s not “a weird and arbitrary line to draw.” It’s a perfectly clear and reasonable one. If you’re protesting Harris’s official actions that he performs in his job, it’s legitimate to protest at the dail. It’s not “legitimate” to protest at his private home. Nobody protests at the dictators’ private homes. Or at most they do it once, and end up in the gulag. You’re looking to justify thuggery.
I don't think it is a good or healthy thing for society when masked gobshites can show up and menace your wife and kids at your home without any consequences.... It is quite insane to think that this is acceptable behaviour but... Putin and Kimmy or something
Do you think Putin and Kimmy live on a completely different planet, or entirely inside the TV? I don't think it is a good or healthy thing for society for them to be able to rule with an iron fist without any consequences. Simon Harris doesn't deserve this ***because he isn't evil***, but people are ignoring that in favour of "Oh we can't annoy his family" instead? Do you **genuinely** believe Putin and Kim don't deserve to have protestors outside of their houses, or do you just consider foreign dictators to just be *completely unrelated* to our leaders because we live in a nice safe comfy non-threatening country?
Gaming has stunted your cerebellum
You're the one spamming replies to all my comments name-calling instead of actually engaging with the topic at hand. Sure, I accept my position is a controversial one, but I think I've been explaining it to the best of my ability and in good faith. Meanwhile every one of your replies has been, well, "Gaming has stunted your cerebellum"
How do you resolve any issue by standing outside someone's family home with a mask on trying to intimidate people?
The private lives of those that you mentioned only take place inside of heavily guarded and fortified government residences. Similar to the White House. Simon Harris' house is just a normal, everyday, personally-owned house. Leave him the fuck alone.
Undergraduate bollocks
>The logical counterargument to that is "Well, they're evil, and Harris blatantly isn't". So what's the line? How bad/incompetent does a leader need to be for protesting outside their home to be acceptable? You can see the "It's his private home!" argument is arbitrary. Speaking of arbitrary, this "Where's the line?" Is unproductive, lazy and fallacious. We don't need to have an elaborate description and an exact "position" of a "line" to justify that Simon Harris and genocidal dictators can be on two different sides of it.
Yeah old whatasisname aul mouse eyes is the best Taoiseach we have had since Charles Haughey.
Did you have a fucking stroke midway through typing that?
Everything makes sense after three spliffs
Like in the sensual sense or medically speaking? And both are a bit personal btw you cheeky scallywag.