Moore Street demolition

[macdanger2]

Was there not previous discussions about this?? And they agreed to preserve 14-17 and not the others? It's fairly late in the day to be arguing about it now. The council voting against it recently is a bit of a stunt, surely they would have had to approve any developments??

Personally I would err on the side of caution and preserve as much as possible or at least develop the newer buildings as public amenities of some sort rather than commercial use

[MoChara]

Courts ruled yesterday no further work to be commenced until after 2 Feb court date.

Protestors decided to leave the building until then, work men are currently in but there are different stories of what they are at securing the site, weather proofing the fact all the building fronts are open or restarting the work of stripping it out.

The campaigns been headed by James Herron Connolly for the past 15 years great grandson of James Connolly

[foxcommander]

Good news - An injunction against any further demolition work has been put in place until a full hearing is held on February 2nd.

It's great that the minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (a language she can't even speak) is hell bent on destroying without even consulting. Read the below and you can smell the scaremongering. She should have just been honest and said they had plans for a 1.25 billion development and want this to go ahead otherwise the council will have to compensate the developers.



The statement said demolition of numbers 13 and 18 "is necessary to underpin the national monument, which is an old building built without proper foundations."

This will allow for the insertion of gables which the department said "are necessary" to safeguard the long-term stability of the national monument.

The statement also said Minister for Heritage Heather Humphries "is very disappointed that any group would attempt to delay these works and jeopardise the project.".

So, tell us the truth about numbers 13 and 18. Did they exist in their current form in 1916?

You're asking if a building from 1916 is still in the same condition as in 1916. You're just so stooped that your blind hatred of anything Sinn Fein are involved with will make you oppose it.

It's fairly typical of the likes of Fine Gael to sell the family silver to the highest bidder and I don't see any difference this time. Theres 1.25 billion in the works and whatever contracts afterwards. NAMA and Siteserv anyone?

If you think that "well numbers X and Y weren't in their original condition" there is no reason why they can't be restored if you really wanted to. I visited the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam a few years ago and they redeveloped and renovated this historical site. Are you saying that because it's not preserved in the same condition as Anne Frank left it then it's historical value is zero?

[seafoid]

I think the Anne Frank story is a good example of how history is manipulated by those in power. There is a clear black Germans are evil / poor white innocent Dutch  angle to the story and it comes across as a Jesus like sacrifice up to including the betrayal and killing.  They could have chosen something far more disturbing like the Apeldoorn Jewish psychiatric hospital's trip to Auschwitz but if they did there would have been far too many questions about how wider Dutch society helped with the Shoah.

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/nazioccupation/apeldoornsebos.html

"Moving among the insane were nurses, young girls, their uniforms torn and grimy, but their faces calm and their hands never idle. Their medicine bags were still over their shoulders and they had to fight to keep their feet, but all the time they were working, soothing, bandaging, giving an injection here, an aspirin there. Not one showed the slightest trace of panic."  "Get them out!" roared the SS-men, "Get them out, you bastards."
A naked girl about twenty with red hair and a superb figure suddenly leaped from a wagon and lay squirming, laughing at my feet. A nurse flung me a heavy Dutch blanket and I tried to put it round her, but she would not get up. With another prisoner, a Slovak called Fogel, I managed to roll her into the blanket."Get them to the lorries!" roared the SS. "Straight to the lorries!  Get on with it for Christ's sake!"

Somehow Fogel and I broke into a lumbering run, for this beautiful girl was heavy. The motion pleased her and she began clapping her hands like a child. An SS club slashed across my shoulders and the blanket slipped from my numbed fingers."Get on you swine! Drag her."
I joined Fogel at the other end of the blanket and we dragged her, bumping her over the frozen earth for five hundred yards. Somehow she clung to the blanket, not laughing now, but crying, as the hard ground thumped her naked flesh through the thick wool."Pitch her in! Get her on the lorries!"

The SS men were frantic for here was something they could not understand. Something that knew no order, no discipline, no obedience, no fear of violence or death.  We pitched her in somehow, then ran back for another crazy, pathetic bundle. Hundreds of them were out of the wagons now, herded by the prisoners who were herded by the SS, and everywhere the nurses, still working. One nurse walked slowly with an old, frail man, talking to him quietly, as if they were out in the hospital grounds. Another half-carried a screaming girl. They fought to bring order out of chaos, using medicines and blankets, gentleness and quiet heroism, instead of guns or sticks or snarling dogs.Then suddenly it was all over. The last abject victims had been slung into one of the overloaded lorries. We stood there, painting in the chill January air."


Rudolf Vrba confirmed the fate of the nurses:

The nurses were not allowed to return home, or work in a modern mental hospital, because the SS doctor making the selection decided the nurses would share the same fate as their patients.The nurses were loaded onto the lorries and roared off, swaying towards the gas chambers, not a single nurse or patient survived.  "


The history around 1916 has similar issues/ The purity of the Easter sacrifice versus the grubbiness and thuggery of the Shinners. St Tom Barry vs sociopath Gerry Adams.  The southern parties want to keep the sacred violence for themselves. A lot of the discussion around 1916 is incoherent.

[Maguire01]

Good news - An injunction against any further demolition work has been put in place until a full hearing is held on February 2nd.

It's great that the minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (a language she can't even speak) is hell bent on destroying without even consulting. Read the below and you can smell the scaremongering. She should have just been honest and said they had plans for a 1.25 billion development and want this to go ahead otherwise the council will have to compensate the developers.



The statement said demolition of numbers 13 and 18 "is necessary to underpin the national monument, which is an old building built without proper foundations."

This will allow for the insertion of gables which the department said "are necessary" to safeguard the long-term stability of the national monument.

The statement also said Minister for Heritage Heather Humphries "is very disappointed that any group would attempt to delay these works and jeopardise the project.".

So, tell us the truth about numbers 13 and 18. Did they exist in their current form in 1916?

You're asking if a building from 1916 is still in the same condition as in 1916. You're just so stooped that your blind hatred of anything Sinn Fein are involved with will make you oppose it.

It's fairly typical of the likes of Fine Gael to sell the family silver to the highest bidder and I don't see any difference this time. Theres 1.25 billion in the works and whatever contracts afterwards. NAMA and Siteserv anyone?

If you think that "well numbers X and Y weren't in their original condition" there is no reason why they can't be restored if you really wanted to. I visited the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam a few years ago and they redeveloped and renovated this historical site. Are you saying that because it's not preserved in the same condition as Anne Frank left it then it's historical value is zero?

It's not about whether it's in the same condition, but whether it's effectively a post 1916 building. And i'm only asking the question, which seems to be difficult to get a clear answer to.

[MoChara]

Good news - An injunction against any further demolition work has been put in place until a full hearing is held on February 2nd.

It's great that the minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (a language she can't even speak) is hell bent on destroying without even consulting. Read the below and you can smell the scaremongering. She should have just been honest and said they had plans for a 1.25 billion development and want this to go ahead otherwise the council will have to compensate the developers.



The statement said demolition of numbers 13 and 18 "is necessary to underpin the national monument, which is an old building built without proper foundations."

This will allow for the insertion of gables which the department said "are necessary" to safeguard the long-term stability of the national monument.

The statement also said Minister for Heritage Heather Humphries "is very disappointed that any group would attempt to delay these works and jeopardise the project.".

So, tell us the truth about numbers 13 and 18. Did they exist in their current form in 1916?

You're asking if a building from 1916 is still in the same condition as in 1916. You're just so stooped that your blind hatred of anything Sinn Fein are involved with will make you oppose it.

It's fairly typical of the likes of Fine Gael to sell the family silver to the highest bidder and I don't see any difference this time. Theres 1.25 billion in the works and whatever contracts afterwards. NAMA and Siteserv anyone?

If you think that "well numbers X and Y weren't in their original condition" there is no reason why they can't be restored if you really wanted to. I visited the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam a few years ago and they redeveloped and renovated this historical site. Are you saying that because it's not preserved in the same condition as Anne Frank left it then it's historical value is zero?

Sinn Fein actually have nothing to do with the protest and occupation, Mary Lou and Gerry Adams were turned away at the door on the Friday I think it was.

[macdanger2]

Courts ruled yesterday no further work to be commenced until after 2 Feb court date.

Protestors decided to leave the building until then, work men are currently in but there are different stories of what they are at securing the site, weather proofing the fact all the building fronts are open or restarting the work of stripping it out.

The campaigns been headed by James Herron Connolly for the past 15 years great grandson of James Connolly

There was another great grandson of Connolly on the news last night saying he was happy with the development - hispprimary concern seemed to be # 16.

TBF, it should be historians making this type of decision rather than developers, councillors, relatives, etc.

[Maguire01]

TBF, it should be historians making this type of decision rather than developers, councillors, relatives, etc.

Absolutely not. Historians (putting aside how you would actually define a historian, and the element of subjectivity on historical matters) have no mandate or accountability to be making any decisions. Elected representatives should make the decisions, obviously taking into account the various facts and opinions.

[foxcommander]

TBF, it should be historians making this type of decision rather than developers, councillors, relatives, etc.

Absolutely not. Historians (putting aside how you would actually define a historian, and the element of subjectivity on historical matters) have no mandate or accountability to be making any decisions. Elected representatives should make the decisions, obviously taking into account the various facts and opinions.

You mean Heather Humphries.
Now what unbiased facts and opinions do you think she would listen to.

Hopefully she's a better historian than she is an Irish speaker.

[foxcommander]

It's not about whether it's in the same condition, but whether it's effectively a post 1916 building. And i'm only asking the question, which seems to be difficult to get a clear answer to.

In that case should someone be allowed build houses on top of the hill of Tara. There's no evidence apart from folklore that it has any real historical significance. That stone is possibly a hoax.

An estate of 4 bed semi-detached homes with that view would certainly fetch top dollar.

What do you reckon? Shall we give Heather a ring and see if she can push though planning permission?

[Maguire01]

It's not about whether it's in the same condition, but whether it's effectively a post 1916 building. And i'm only asking the question, which seems to be difficult to get a clear answer to.

In that case should someone be allowed build houses on top of the hill of Tara. There's no evidence apart from folklore that it has any real historical significance. That stone is possibly a hoax.

An estate of 4 bed semi-detached homes with that view would certainly fetch top dollar.

What do you reckon? Shall we give Heather a ring and see if she can push though planning permission?

There's archeological evidence that it's a site of historic significance. Can you point to anyone disputing its significance?

In the case of the Moore Street buildings, there appears to be evidence that numbers 18 and 19 were in ruins in 1916 and number 13 has a new front and interior, so there's nothing from 1916 to preserve for those properties, unless i'm missing something. It would be a different argument if the proposal was to demolish the whole street.

[foxcommander]

It's not about whether it's in the same condition, but whether it's effectively a post 1916 building. And i'm only asking the question, which seems to be difficult to get a clear answer to.

In that case should someone be allowed build houses on top of the hill of Tara. There's no evidence apart from folklore that it has any real historical significance. That stone is possibly a hoax.

An estate of 4 bed semi-detached homes with that view would certainly fetch top dollar.

What do you reckon? Shall we give Heather a ring and see if she can push though planning permission?

There's archeological evidence that it's a site of historic significance. Can you point to anyone disputing its significance?

I don't know of anyone with first hand evidence to support the claim. Artefacts could have been planted.
Can't they not build the estate around the mound? The rest of the field wouldn't be of any significance. Might have to knock a few quid off the asking price for the homes.

[macdanger2]

TBF, it should be historians making this type of decision rather than developers, councillors, relatives, etc.

Absolutely not. Historians (putting aside how you would actually define a historian, and the element of subjectivity on historical matters) have no mandate or accountability to be making any decisions. Elected representatives should make the decisions, obviously taking into account the various facts and opinions.

So where are the elected officials supposed to get these "facts" that you're talking about from?? Historians perhaps??

The decision about whether or not the site is of historical significance should be taken by someone qualified to do so based on facts.

[Maguire01]

It's not about whether it's in the same condition, but whether it's effectively a post 1916 building. And i'm only asking the question, which seems to be difficult to get a clear answer to.

In that case should someone be allowed build houses on top of the hill of Tara. There's no evidence apart from folklore that it has any real historical significance. That stone is possibly a hoax.

An estate of 4 bed semi-detached homes with that view would certainly fetch top dollar.

What do you reckon? Shall we give Heather a ring and see if she can push though planning permission?

There's archeological evidence that it's a site of historic significance. Can you point to anyone disputing its significance?

I don't know of anyone with first hand evidence to support the claim. Artefacts could have been planted.
Can't they not build the estate around the mound? The rest of the field wouldn't be of any significance. Might have to knock a few quid off the asking price for the homes.

You're right. Letting them build the estate around the mound sounds like a good compromise.

[Maguire01]

TBF, it should be historians making this type of decision rather than developers, councillors, relatives, etc.

Absolutely not. Historians (putting aside how you would actually define a historian, and the element of subjectivity on historical matters) have no mandate or accountability to be making any decisions. Elected representatives should make the decisions, obviously taking into account the various facts and opinions.

So where are the elected officials supposed to get these "facts" that you're talking about from?? Historians perhaps??

The decision about whether or not the site is of historical significance should be taken by someone qualified to do so based on facts.

Yes, historians can inform those who make the decisions. But the historians don't make the decisions, as your earlier post suggested.

In this case, there appears to be historical records to suggest the disputed buildings are not historically significant:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/buildings-at-centre-of-moore-st-protest-not-historically-significant-1.2489475
That's what officials are pointing to as the basis for their decision. Therefore they're doing what you seem to be suggesting, surely?