Bastille Day Storming of 42 Parnell Square

by shakkow Mon Jul 14, 2003 20:30

Well done to all involved in the claiming of the space. One question though. Why was the door not properly barricaded,surely this is the first and most important step when establishing a squat?
Also, are they intending to go back in????

by jp Mon Jul 14, 2003 20:39

?

by ecrudden Mon Jul 14, 2003 20:41

.

by me - disco disco Mon Jul 14, 2003 21:18

the barracades were not the best but we did have em. The so called owners arrived with axe and sledge hammer and hit someone with a crowbar through the hole they made in the door. Better barricades were in the making.

by jp Mon Jul 14, 2003 21:37

.

by the swinish multitude Mon Jul 14, 2003 23:12

May you by Bastilles ne'er appalled
See Nature's Right renewed
Nor longer unavenged be called
The Swinish Multitude !

by ipsiphi recylcing useful advice Mon Jul 14, 2003 23:19

internal barricades may best be made by placing holes in the wall either side of the door at about a metre from the door.
Place supporting pressure (like think like Archimedes) on all corners of the door. You must work with what you have. The door must be reinforced. laterally. It seems like being a waste of time, but you practise breaking doors down and see how they break...

You must leave one weak point in the door.

The weak unsupported point breaks easily, leading the evictor to think "oh this will be easy".

Thus you have a small hole through which you can speak to the evictor. This gives you valuable "psychological leverage", you begin playing Wolfie and little piggie.
[you are little piggie].

It is a good idea to let wolfie get all hot and bothered talking to you through the hole in the door. This is very important. Aggresive people can only stay aggresive for relatively short periods of time. Paid aggression the type you will most probably be facing runs out of enthusiasm quite quickly.

You then do your best to really work up wolfie so wolfie will use up all that nasty energy on trying to finish breaking your door.

Wolfie will stop after five minutes, exhausted, and psychologically weakened, this is a good time to
a. spray wolfie through the door.
b. dump your shite on wolfie from above the door.
c. close your second door.

Your second door. This must be brought with you when you open the squat. Your second door shall be placed no more than two metres from the first.
Your second door should preferably be "sitex" that is metalic and opening outwards.

The expression on wolfie's face when the second door closes is quite quite precious.

This method was developed and practised by "braindamage" of London Kollectives.

Thank you Sir!
for keeping the wolf from our door.
(on behalf of the ragazzi)

by - Mon Jul 14, 2003 23:26

today's head gash I understand happened that way.
I have found it is a good idea to talk to wolfie from an upstairs window if there is one. Wolfie must shout louder and this uses up aggression more so, and if you are in a "decent" enough area, and wolfie isn't a gun touting cockney gangster then you get extra witness effect.

*** if wolfie is a gun touting cockney gangster or keeps a pig farm or something like that, then you leave.
- quickly.
(your instincts will help you out on that one)

by ever the realist iosaf - variables aside Tue Jul 15, 2003 10:44

most people do not fit easily into the
Wolfie versus Little Piggie
analogy.

now we're going to look at ethics.
¿to what extent may a property speculator leave the social contract of obedience?

by Anonymous Tue Jul 15, 2003 12:01

Have the Hearld, all the other newspapers, radio stations and tv stations been sent all these photographs and reports??

Tell me that have!!

by MG Tue Jul 15, 2003 13:26

I work in the media and, in my experience, your average journalist would laugh at these pictures, make some inane comment about smelly crusties and throw them in the bin. The mainstream media doesn't care about "alternative" stories. That's why indymedia was set up.

If you want my advice, ignore the mainstream media. They will always give priority to the views of the Government and the propertied classes. Also, many journalists and newspaper owners would also be homeowners or landlords and they would not see the Disco Disco squat as an action against a derelict building, but a takeover of private property which legitimately belonged to this Bermingham fella.

You can't expect full-blown members of the gombeen class to sympathise with the Disco Disco cause, even if they are supposed to be "objective", whatever that is...

by elfin troll Tue Jul 15, 2003 13:48

that class of land owners, by which we mean those who do not live in thier own home and hold investment in other properties where other people either live or not in residence naturally includes journalists, pub owners, gardaí, and bank staff of more than six years service.

Demographically the land owner and speculator is an interesting gombeen.

Today Iris Murdoch, Derrida & Walter Benjamin were born.

by Anonymous Tue Jul 15, 2003 15:07

I take your comments on board MG. But obviously your "average" journalist as you say, does not represent every journalist.

I agree with most of your comments above, but the other main priority for a journalist, and what he gets paid for, is to sell his product.

I think the above story is newsworthy and if it was fed to ALL the media in a proper, efficient way, it will get some coverage.

Indymedia is a great site but in general it is speaking to and is being read by the already converted.

In order to reach the public at large I do not see how the mainstream media can just be ignored.

Rather I think the left in general is failing to use the media and suffering as a result.

Whilst we might not agree with the right-wing biased agenda of most media, I belive that this, FREE, resource, must be fully utilized.

by MG Tue Jul 15, 2003 15:17

Journalists will take these photographs, witness reports, audio clips, etc and spin them into a story that sells as many newspapers as possible. In my experience in the media, this means that journalists will report how a bunch of dole-scrounging, smelly, hippy tossers took over a building worth several million euros that didn't belong to them.

This will be the extent of the coverage in the tabloids and the Herald and the O'Reilly rags, which are read by the vast majority of the Irish public. Is this the kind of publicity you want? Is this the image you want the Irish people to get about the people who squatted in Parnell Square?

The Irish Times and the other newspapers which have virtually no readership might give a small paragraph at the end of the report about how the squatters were planning to use the space to help community groups, about how they were protesting at the indecency of "private property". But this is meaningless as they will still portray the event as a takeover of private property by troublemakers with no jobs and rich parents and smelly clothes and long hair.

I know this because I'm a journalist. I don't like being negative, but the media is as corrupt as every other sector of public life in Ireland and only an idiot would trust it be "objective".

by Chekov Tue Jul 15, 2003 15:28

Headline yesterday in the Herald. Also carried in the Sun and on TV3. When they can entirely invent front-page news, without the use of a single source or piece of evidence, it is hard to think that we could really do much to 'manage' our media image.

by Ivan Caramba - IBC Tue Jul 15, 2003 15:37

It mentioned a web source. They probably got the idea from the BB thread on here and then totally fabricated the rest.

by Chekov Tue Jul 15, 2003 15:48

that it was written entirely in Harcourt st, Special branch HQ. The use of the story on 3 independent news sources on the same day indicates some third party delivered the 'evidence' rather than it being made up by a particular hack. The gardai are one of a small number of sources that the hacks will use absolutely uncritically and publish whatever they say (they have to or they may get excluded from future leaks and sure then they'd have to write their own articles and maybe even, horror of horrors, do some research).

by Anonymous Tue Jul 15, 2003 15:59

I'm not going to go into too much detail here but once again I take your comments on board and you indeed make a good case, and seem to have a valuable insight into journalism.

You may indeed be correct in what you say, but I still feel that this incident bares all the hallmarks of what happened in on the day of RTS - Reclaim the Streets. In which the cops could not have come out worse and the "smelly crustys" received prime time coverage - getting a slot on the Late Late for instacnce. I know you will probably come up with reasons why this is not a correct comparison, but I just am not as sure/sceptical as you are, that the media should not be approached. Just send them the photo with the scar and the blood and send them nothing else! Police brutality also sells, and no doubt every journalist in his own personal life has come across police intimidation/brutality. And then again there is also the old axiom that any news is good news!

Once again I certainly see your points, I just think there are 2 sides of the argument to be weighed up.

Besides this specific incident - what do you feel regarding the issue as a whole? Do you not think the "left" is under-utilizing the media? Do you not think there are surely some instances where the media should be approached? And do you not think that there are instances where the media should be approached on certain issues, but which the left is not fully utilizing?

by MG Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:40

I don't want to get too deep into this and i was only expressing my opinion. If others feel the media should be "utilised" they're perfectly entitled to that opinion.

I agree that coverage of RTS in May 2002 was not of the "smelly crustie" inclination, but RTS was a legal and peaceful demonstration that was attacked by the police. The Disco Disco people *illegally* took over a very valuable building that didn't belong to them or to the State. This was against the law and the Gardai responded and that is the way the story would have been portrayed in the mainstream media if they had bothered to write anything about it. (I would love to be proved wrong, but as I said, I work in the media and I know what I'm talking about.)

In general, I feel that groups engaged in radical politics should ignore the media, because by relying on getting good coverage, they are allowing journalists and their prejudices to set the agenda. Just look at SWP, SP, IAWM, Greens, NGOs, etc. These groups court media coverage to such an extent that everything they do must first be measured against the predicted response from the media. For example, IAWM, SF, Labour, Greens refused to support direct action at Shannon because it would have tarnished their media image, not because they opposed direct action.

by Bigfoot Thu Jul 17, 2003 04:26

GET A JOB YOU DIRTY DRUGGY SCUMBAGS!

People are getting annoyed with you pushy little commies, theres going to be a reckoning.