Blatant taking advantage of services - why do we support it?

woodoo

Fromthetrees wrote: »

The kids in that house are still innocent and are not guilty of their parents crimes. The state has an obligation to house them.

If you start taking children off people more regularly then we create more problems.

What we have now is an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Take money out of their dole to pay for the repairs and don't give them a new house.

Airitech

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

With the HSE track record looking after kids???


Are you for real. I would not trust them to look after a cat never mind a child.

And yet they'd still be a better option than the parents in these cases. I think it was wexie that pointed out that there are plenty of families in Ireland capable and willing to care for these children.

Gatling

woodoo wrote: »

Take money out of their dole to pay for the repairs and don't give them a new house.

They would only have to pay 2-3 e week even at that they would be down to the cwo looking for the extra cash

Shelflife

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

So they were given a house a few years ago and the OP was there to see the condition of the house at the time, not only that but you have been back to see what condition it is in now, exactly how long in your book is a few years and is that the reality of the time they have spent there,

are they paying rent (I would be guessing they are) so has the landlord kept the house in good condition if they were reporting problems as they were happening, or have they had to wait and wait and wait, till it got so bad they felt their rent was paying for a lesser abode than the one they originally moved into,

or should they upkeep the property in all ways regardless of any responsibility to the land lord,

two sides to every coin.

In the instance that i refered to , it was a council house and was in good repair when they got it, on leaving all the furnishings had to be gutted and replaced, carpets destroyed walls repainted and a couple of skips of crap removed from the garden.

im not talking about poor landlords, im talking about people who get something for nothing, make ****e of it and are then rewarded with a better place to live in, and we pay for it all.

ive no problem at all with giving people a hand when they are down, but when they bite that hand then as far as im concerned they forfei that right to any further help.

Gatling wrote: »

They would only have to pay 2-3 e week even at that they would be down to the cwo looking for the extra cash

Yes gatling thats the problem, and if they kick up enough stink the cwo will give them money just to get rid of them.

3ndahalfof6

Shelflife wrote: »

In the instance that i refered to , it was a council house and was in good repair when they got it, on leaving all the furnishings had to be gutted and replaced, carpets destroyed walls repainted and a couple of skips of crap removed from the garden.

im not talking about poor landlords, im talking about people who get something for nothing, make ****e of it and are then rewarded with a better place to live in, and we pay for it all.

ive no problem at all with giving people a hand when they are down, but when they bite that hand then as far as im concerned they forfei that right to any further help.



Yes gatling thats the problem, and if they kick up enough stink the cwo will give them money just to get rid of them.

I was replying to the OP, hence the questions.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Gatling

This country doesn't do consequences ,
Crime
Anti social behavior
Welfare cheats
Social housing (property wreckers)

The is little or no consequences for thrashing a free house ,please don't do it again and here's the keys to your new house

3ndahalfof6

Gatling wrote: »

This country doesn't do consequences ,
Crime
Anti social behavior
Welfare cheats
Social housing (property wreckers)

The is little or no consequences for thrashing a free house ,please don't do it again and here's the keys to your new house

So the less well off are on a winner, FF your back in next time for sure.

Gatling

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

So the less well off are on a winner, FF your back in next time for sure.

Doesn't matter who's in charge its the same status quo

3ndahalfof6

Gatling wrote: »

Doesn't matter who's in charge its the same status quo

Yes in most cases, including the workers who now find themselves out of work, while it is not their fault, tar them all, we have plenty of feathers.

Chemical Burn

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

People like that should be left to their own devices, let them live in their own filth.

There should be two islands purchased off the coast of Ireland.

One, with a road connecting to the mainland, onto which people can move freely in and out, for social housing.

The other, onto which there is no access, (or very restricted) is for criminals, waters surrounding it will be patrolled 24/7 and shark infested to stop escaping, for criminals.

Death and Taxes

Chemical Burn wrote: »

There should be two islands purchased off the coast of Ireland.

One, with a road connecting to the mainland, onto which people can move freely in and out, for social housing.

The other, onto which there is no access, (or very restricted) is for criminals, waters surrounding it will be patrolled 24/7 and shark infested to stop escaping, for criminals.

that should be posted in the jokes thread, are you seriously suggesting that anyone needing social housing should be put on an Island off the coast?

SB2013

tails_naf wrote: »

This post is not targeting any particular group of people, but instead is about a behaviour of some people.

A recent case in my local town - a family that were given a free house a few years ago reported on the conditions in the house now, and how it is unsuitable for living in. Broken windows all over, internal doors hanging off or missing entirely, holes in walls, and filth everywhere.

The thing is, when the house was given to them a few years ago, it was just fine - so any damage has been self inflicted.

They are now looking for a new, nicer place. This same group are locally known to be petty thieves and not people to cross, etc.

So the questions really have to be asked:

Who supports the system we have where they will in all likelihood be given a new house, with zero effort or cost to them?

What political motivation do we have to spend money in this way, which is actually encouraging the behaviour, and means the next generation will likely be worse and feel more entitled than the last?

Especially given the crime element too - surely at the very least, being involved in crime should see a reduction or modification of hand-outs?

Granted this is an extreme case, but surely if this cannot be tackled properly then the example it is giving is a poor one.

So any ideas why this is allowed?

Take a spin down the Kylemore Road and take a look at Labre Park. It's a complete disgrace. Don't worry though. The council are going to invest 10 million in it to return it to its former glory.

Warning: Dont actually drive into it. Look at it from a distance.

Grand Moff Tarkin

Airitech wrote: »

And yet they'd still be a better option than the parents in these cases. I think it was wexie that pointed out that there are plenty of families in Ireland capable and willing to care for these children.

But it is the HSE track record in getting children to the right families is the issue and they do not seem to do a good job to go by the amount of screw ups with kids running away and ending up taking their own life.

Gatling

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

But it is the HSE track record in getting children to the right families is the issue and they do not seem to do a good job to go by the amount of screw ups with kids running away and ending up taking their own life.

There is the problem they can't forcibly detain teenagers especially one's with various issues ,if they did people would be up in arms screaming human rights ,
Its a case of there damned if they do something and damned if they dont

end of the road

Chemical Burn wrote: »

There should be two islands purchased off the coast of Ireland.

One, with a road connecting to the mainland, onto which people can move freely in and out, for social housing.

The other, onto which there is no access, (or very restricted) is for criminals, waters surrounding it will be patrolled 24/7 and shark infested to stop escaping, for criminals.

1. who are we going to "purchase" such islands from?
2. considering we have islands off the coast all ready how are we going to move them close enough to "build a road" to 1 of them?
i have a feeling you have been smoking a little something tonight

Gatling

Send them to Afghanistan I here there will be some prime real estate going in the next 12 -18 months

end of the road

Gatling wrote: »

screaming human rights

ah yes, no better way to invalidate a point then to put "screaming" before the likes of racism, and in your case human rights, human rights are human rights whether we like it or not, if something is against ones human rights its set down in law in the first place.

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

ah yes, no better way to invalidate a point then to put "screaming" before the likes of racism, and in your case human rights, human rights are human rights whether we like it or not, if something is against ones human rights its set down in law in the first place.

My point exactly ,
People complaining when they forget about human Rights,
Wonder if we could have a human right to protect some of our troubled teens from causing themselves harm

SB2013

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

With the HSE track record looking after kids???


Are you for real. I would not trust them to look after a cat never mind a child.

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

But it is the HSE track record in getting children to the right families is the issue and they do not seem to do a good job to go by the amount of screw ups with kids running away and ending up taking their own life.

What track record? The majority of kids in HSE care are much better off than before they entered. It's not perfect by any stretch but its generally safer and healthier than the life they would have lived.

Zer0

This kind of thing with services and benefits happens all the time. As long as these services are available there will be people out there who know them and the system back to front and abuse them. It's the way it goes, there's also honest people who are genuine and benefit greatly from them. But at times it seems that it just takes one bad apple to spoil it all..

If you were to remove these benefits from the people whom you speak of that destroyed the house in the first place, you would be ambushed with calls from human rights groups and Joe Duffy. I doubt there's any political motivation to spend money in such a way, it's a service who addresses those who are in need of it. It has to be offered to these people as it's the way the system works, they are seen as in need of it so therefor they receive it, which is why it's allowed.

This type of behavior is learned by these people from their parents and their own views they hold of society and said system they are abusing. It's nothing new, it can be seen all across Ireland in different communities and groups.

I presume the funding from this comes from the EU as the majority of funding for these projects does, although I could be wrong, so I'm open to correction there. This type of carry on irritates me too at times, but I try to not wreck my head by thinking about it. I suppose I've more things to be concerned about, like paying rent next week, etc.

For Paws

Why we have a Social Welfare system

Our SW system allows the State to provide support to those of our citizens (and others who qualify) who cannot provide for themselves. Unfortunately the system doesn't always distinguish between those who cannot and those who will not. The system should ideally provide enough support, short & long term, so that the opportunity to contribute to society is within reach to those who require support. If those who require support lose their self respect, then their respect for society is lost, and the wish to join as fully as possible in society is also lost (and consequently society, in return, loses respect for them).

Unfortunately, support by itself has always proved insufficient. Money, housing, re-training and advice can help, but without incentives they become the objects of abuse by those who feel marginalised.

If society really wants to minimise the problems associated with the SW system, it has to break the vicious cycle that allows system abuse to become endemic & generational. To do this means re-homing the children of those people who will not provide for their children. To do this in a manner that the vast majority of people will support seems beyond the capabilities and courage of the system we pay for.

Only we can change this. Are we ready to make the hard decisions ?

wicklowstevo

Chucken wrote: »

Where was that? 1980?

it was in south Wicklow in a place called barndearg and it was in 2012 ,

Chucken

wicklowstevo wrote: »

it was in south Wicklow in a place called barndearg and it was in 2012 ,

10 euro a week? I call bs.

(a) Rent will consist of:
i) The MINIMUM RENT as calculated will be €24.00
PLUS
(ii) 20% of the tenants(s) (see ‘b’ below) assessable income in excess €188.00
PLUS
(iii) 20% of each subsidiary earner’s (see ‘c’ below) assessable income in excess of €30 per week, subject to a maximum of an amount equal to the MINIMUM RENT for each subsidiary earner;
LESS
(iv) A deduction of €5 per child will be allowed in respect of each dependant child of the household. A ‘dependent child’ for the purposes of rent assessment means a person aged 18 years or under or persons over 18 years of age and in full time education and not in receipt of income
(b) Where spouses and/or partners are in receipt of separate payments their incomes are combined for the purpose of determining the principal earner.
(c) A Subsidiary Earner is a member of the household, other than the tenant who has an income


http://www.wicklow.ie/apps/wicklowbeta/Housing/DifferentialRent2011.aspx

For Paws

Chucken wrote: »

10 euro a week? I call bs.

(a) Rent will consist of:
i) The MINIMUM RENT as calculated will be €24.00
PLUS
(ii) 20% of the tenants(s) (see ‘b’ below) assessable income in excess €188.00
PLUS
(iii) 20% of each subsidiary earner’s (see ‘c’ below) assessable income in excess of €30 per week, subject to a maximum of an amount equal to the MINIMUM RENT for each subsidiary earner;
LESS
(iv) A deduction of €5 per child will be allowed in respect of each dependant child of the household. A ‘dependent child’ for the purposes of rent assessment means a person aged 18 years or under or persons over 18 years of age and in full time education and not in receipt of income
(b) Where spouses and/or partners are in receipt of separate payments their incomes are combined for the purpose of determining the principal earner.
(c) A Subsidiary Earner is a member of the household, other than the tenant who has an income


http://www.wicklow.ie/apps/wicklowbeta/Housing/DifferentialRent2011.aspx

Not having (a) the figures relating to the household in Barndearg to hand,
and (b) not being an actuary by profession

Is it possible, with two adults both in receipt of Job seekers allowance and say 3 or 4 children to care for, could the actual rent paid be €10 ?

For Paws

It is a matter of some comfort that the parents of the family mentioned in the OP did not take the action that caused the deaths of six children in Nottingham. The parents, and their friend, apparently set the fire in an effort to cause sufficient damage that would force the local council to re house the family in a larger home.

For once, words fail me.

Gatling

For Paws wrote: »

It is a matter of some comfort that the parents of the family mentioned in the OP did not take the action that caused the deaths of six children in Nottingham. The parents, and their friend, apparently set the fire in an effort to cause sufficient damage that would force the local council to re house the family in a larger home.

For once, words fail me.

No the fire was set to frame an ex who left with 5 kids he wanted sole custody