Asylum Seeker protest on Kinsale Road. Mod warning in OP.

tolerant from cork

alastair wrote: »

Has anyone provided any back-up for disputing the claims? How do you know that the RIA haven't upheld such "wild" complaints?

Because such a behaviour would be gross misconduct and management of the centre would be informed immediately. They wer not.

There were people laid off for way less.

alastair

tolerant from cork wrote: »

Because such a behaviour would be gross misconduct and management of the centre would be informed immediately. They wer not.

They weren't? Have you evidence to support this claim?

tolerant from cork

alastair wrote: »

Right where you falsely accused a poster of amnesia, where there was no suggestion of amnesia, feigned or genuine. That's pretty dishonest.

Have you heard of sarcasm?

tolerant from cork

alastair wrote: »

They weren't? Have you evidence to support this claim?

Management of the centre has. Obviously they can't post it here. RIA would be obliged to provide you with such information.

Gatling

alastair wrote: »

Has anyone provided any back-up for disputing the claims? How do you know that the RIA haven't upheld such "wild" complaints?

Its not for me or others to disprove wild accusations the onus is on the person making wild accusations to back up what there saying ,

A read of the chater will back my post up

alastair

tolerant from cork wrote: »

Have you heard of sarcasm?

Have you heard of dishonest accusations?

alastair

tolerant from cork wrote: »

Management of the centre has. Obviously they can't post it here. RIA would be obliged to provide you with such information.

The RIA don't publish the nature of complaints made, or indeed the nature of complaints upheld.

The Integration Centre, however, in it's submission on the effectiveness of the RIA's oversight of Direct Provision Centres, had this to say:

We are concerned of repeated instances where management/staff enter residents rooms unannounced or where the resident is not present to give consent. These issues need clarification in the rules and procedures document. Explanation needs to be given as to what are the “operational grounds” and why reasonable notification could not be sought.

tolerant from cork

alastair wrote: »

Have you heard of dishonest accusations?

I did. Lots of comments here accusing people of crime ... but you care about amnesia more. Good luck with your logic.

alastair

Gatling wrote: »

Its not for me or others to disprove wild accusations the onus is on the person making wild accusations to back up what there saying ,

A read of the chater will back my post up

There's little 'wild' about the claims made tbh.

tolerant from cork

alastair wrote: »

The RIA don't publish the nature of complaints made, or indeed the nature of complaints upheld.

The Integration Centre, however, in it's submission on the effectiveness of the RIA's oversight of Direct Provision Centres, had this to say:

Room checks are explained in the rule book. Every room has to be checked once a week for maintenance purposes. In a regular hotel it's done when guests move out but here obviously it couldn't be done that way.

Gatling

alastair wrote: »

There's little 'wild' about the claims made tbh.

Wild accusations plain and simple and absolutely nothing to back it up

alastair

tolerant from cork wrote: »

I did. Lots of comments here accusing people of crime ... but you care about amnesia more. Good luck with your logic.

No-one was accused of a crime. That's your straw man. If the rules were being abused, as claimed, that's far from sufficient evidence of criminal activity - harassment or otherwise. You, however, displayed bare-faced dishonesty.

alastair

Gatling wrote: »

Wild accusations plain and simple and absolutely nothing to back it up

The views of the Integration Centre report would appear to lend some credence to the claims.

Gatling

alastair wrote: »

The views of the Integration Centre report would appear to lend some credence to the claims.

Where is this exactly

reprise

alastair wrote: »

The RIA don't publish the nature of complaints made, or indeed the nature of complaints upheld.

The Integration Centre, however, in it's submission on the effectiveness of the RIA's oversight of Direct Provision Centres, had this to say:

So the Integration Centre was so concerned, they buried it in a report that they were not asked for?

tolerant from cork

alastair wrote: »

No-one was accused of a crime. That's your straw man. If the rules were being abused, as claimed, that's far from sufficient evidence of criminal activity - harassment or otherwise. You, however, displayed bare-faced dishonesty.

Rules were not abused.

alastair

tolerant from cork wrote: »

Room checks are explained in the rule book. Every room has to be checked once a week for maintenance purposes. In a regular hotel it's done when guests move out but here obviously it couldn't be done that way.

The rules are pretty open to abuse:

The centre manager is obliged by the Reception and Integration Agency to maintain minimum standards of accommodation [for the benefit of all residents] at all times. This may result in bedroom inspections by either the manager, the Reception and Integration Agency or by inspectors appointed by the Reception and Integration Agency. For operational reasons, it will not always be possible to forewarn residents of these inspections. Residents must cooperate with all such bedroom inspections.

And the concerns of the Integration Centre are straightforward enough, taking these rules into account.

alastair

tolerant from cork wrote: »

Rules were not abused.

That's debatable.

We are concerned of repeated instances where management/staff enter residents rooms unannounced or where the resident is not present to give consent.

alastair

reprise wrote: »

So the Integration Centre was so concerned, they buried it in a report that they were not asked for?

They highlighted it in a report they produced on the effectiveness of the RIA's oversight of Direct Provision centres. If you see that as burying it, I'm not sure what to say to you?

tolerant from cork

alastair wrote: »

The rules are pretty open to abuse:


And the concerns of the Integration Centre are straightforward enough, taking these rules into account.

Being open to abuse doesn't mean that they are abused. Can't give you full story here unfortunately. Usually those checks are done due to health and safety reasons. Main concerns would be fire safety and hygiene.

reprise

alastair wrote: »

They highlighted it in a report they produced on the effectiveness of the RIA's oversight of Direct Provision centres. If you see that as burying it, I'm not sure what to say to you?

If you don't think bursting into peoples rooms like the flipping SAS is worthy of no more than a unqualified mention in a seven year old report, I'm really not sure what to say to you.

http://www.integrationcentre.ie/getattachment/c503918e-784c-4fba-baef-a3e208520974/Review-of-the-Direct-Provision-Reception-and-Accom.aspx

alastair

reprise wrote: »

If you don't think bursting into peoples rooms like the flipping SAS is worthy of no more than a unqualified mention in a seven year old report, I'm really not sure what to say to you.

http://www.integrationcentre.ie/getattachment/c503918e-784c-4fba-baef-a3e208520974/Review-of-the-Direct-Provision-Reception-and-Accom.aspx

The only reference to the SAS, is the one you just made, so nope - I doubt it's anything like the SAS. The reference in the report is quite specific and unambiguous. It's not buried, as you claimed and yes, the report is seven years old - does that make the concerns any less valid?

tolerant from cork

alastair wrote: »

The only reference to the SAS, is the one you just made, so nope - I doubt it's anything like the SAS. The reference in the report is quite specific and unambiguous. It's not buried, as you claimed and yes, the report is seven years old - does that make the concerns any less valid?

The report also doesn't specify the centre. Loads of the private and poorly run centres are already closed.

alastair

tolerant from cork wrote: »

Being open to abuse doesn't mean that they are abused.

But the report highlights instances that would be considered abuses of the rules - not that different to the posters claims in this thread.

tolerant from cork wrote: »

Can't give you full story here unfortunately. Usually those checks are done due to health and safety reasons. Main concerns would be fire safety and hygiene.

Presumably it's mostly concerned with the use of electric hobs, George Foreman grills, etc? Whatever the reasons - well-intended or otherwise, there's clearly been the perception of abuse, or over-zealous application of the rules.

alastair

tolerant from cork wrote: »

The report also doesn't specify the centre. Loads of the private and poorly run centres are already closed.

It's a national report, so the centres involved may, or may not be ones that are closed or open. We just don't know. The report also makes clear that there are issues with willingness to report abuses to the RIA, due to concerns of scapegoating. The recent transfer of protesting applicants spokespersons by the RIA does little to undermine those perceptions.

reprise

alastair wrote: »

The only reference to the SAS, is the one you just made, so nope - I doubt it's anything like the SAS. The reference in the report is quite specific and unambiguous. It's not buried, as you claimed and yes, the report is seven years old - does that make the concerns any less valid?

Seven years ago this should have been a huge story if there was a shred of truth in it and not some anecdotal bull**** on a par with asylum seekers dumping prams for new ones.

alastair

reprise wrote: »

Seven years ago this should have been a huge story if there was a shred of truth in it and not some anecdotal bull**** on a par with asylum seekers dumping prams for new ones.

I didn't notice anything about dumped prams in the report, so once you can produce an NGO researched report that makes such claims, I'll grant you that it's on a par. Until then...

Asylum seeker issues tend not to be big news stories, until dramatic **** hits the fan. The truth is that few care a whole lot about their situation.

Gatling

A 7 year old draft document for submission on house rules and proceedures ,

As i stated earlier hundreds of asylum cases through the courts and yet not one mention of the accusation/s
No leaked press stories
No human rights groups screaming about this

tolerant from cork

alastair wrote: »

But the report highlights instances that would be considered abuses of the rules - not that different to the posters claims in this thread.


Presumably it's mostly concerned with the use of electric hobs, George Foreman grills, etc? Whatever the reasons - well-intended or otherwise, there's clearly been the perception of abuse, or over-zealous application of the rules.

Every single approach to implement any of the rules (i.e. no smoking in the rooms) is always met with abuse accusations and a racist card pulled out.

Daisy Dasi

Pixie Elf wrote: »

in terms of taking the protest to somewhere else....

in kinsale there has been countless meetings with management and staff.... promises are made - nothing changes

people didnt rise up in celtic tiger years as they hadnt been there so so long at that time

this is genuinely about forcing the issue to be looked at - they have tried so many times and feel like this is their only avenue

it is not all the appeals that people seeking asylum make that has created the backlog... it is that the high court is backlogged - this should also be addressed for others waiting for their cases to be heard

in fact i think you may be misinformed regarding the appeals... you can appeal a decision on refugee status and i think although i need to check you can appeal if you are refused humanitarian leave to remain

2 appeals....not hundreds like its being made out to be

i support the residents - people should not be made to languish for so many years

allow people to work............thats a no brainer

no i do not mean free education - i mean any education above leaving certificate (as i understand it)

no i mean a fair system

cant remember what else you asked

Are these meetings documented? Minutes, agendas etc with management responses?

I would think one system for asylum seekers etc such as DP and then another type of accommodation for people awaiting results of Subsidiary protection etc which could be self catering. But that could mean moving people to different counties again depending where there are spaces available in these specific SP centres which again, would open another tin of worms if children are going to school etc.

I know Mosney is self catering, maybe that could be a centre for people applying for SP etc? Just suggestions... speaking of Mosney... if conditions are so bad at the Kinsale Road why haven't people applied for transfers to say Glaunthaune or Mosney etc?