People with disabilities & 250,000 carers in Ireland.

Was driving in the car around 4pm yesterday afternoon and while flicking through stations I came upon an exceptionally articulate man on RTÉ Radio 1. I never got his second name as I had to leave the car but his first name was Tom, and he has a son named Eoghan (Eoin?), who has a serious disability.

Anyway, this man was absolutely on fire talking about the struggles he has on a quotidian basis to secure essential services for his child. About how he is recurrently passed from one of a large number of organisations to another and another, all abnegating responsibility for particular services - or, as he put it when somebody rang up with similar experiences, 'Welcome to my world'. He was lucid, yet measured - placing the ultimate blame not on the HSE or the myriad of other bodies but on An Taoiseach for the continuation of what he convincingly contended was one of the final acceptable areas of discrimination against a clearly defined section of Irish citizens.

He had enough clarity of mind to appeal to Varadkar as not only Taoiseach but as somebody from a community which had to fight to end discrimination, as somebody who should have empathy. He was impressively complimentary, yet firm: "I know he's a good, honourable man... but he's also the person with most power to end this discrimantion" (I paraphrase). And he asked: in 2017 why is it still acceptable to discriminate against disabled people and the 250,000 carers in Ireland? The Irish state is, he again and again mentioned, the only state in the EU which refuses to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. The only one.

The constancy of the battles the man has to secure the most basic supports for his child is most remarkable: if somebody with his energy and eloquence struggles so much for the basics, how are other disabled people and their carers managing? And the truth is they aren't: by EU standards Irish carers receive a pitiful number of hours break from caring. Moreover, he was emphatic that disability services have only gone backwards in Ireland in the past ten years.

It's hard enough to raise children, balance work and so much else but when life throws you a curveball of a child who has a disability and the power of the state to help quickly becomes the power to hinder, it must take extraordinary human spirit to keep fighting for what's right. I think personally that that fight would destroy me.

How long before the rest of us stop tolerating this state-sponsored callousness towards people with disabilities and their families? Will it only happen if Leo Varadkar and senior civil servants in the departments of Finance and Health are thrown the same curveball in life? And maybe, just maybe, if the vast majority of EU states can find the money to treat these people much better the problem is not so much money as spending priorities for the Irish government and, let's face it, a huge dose of establishment misogyny (most of the 250,000 carers are female and thus easier to walk on)?

Keep all these carers starved of support/ busy/oppressed and they won't have the energy to mobilise against Irish government policy. Imagine if, however, all those people did believe in change just enough for that massive protest in Dublin? I'd definitely be out supporting them (I've no family members with a disability).

bucketybuck

What is the government denying to disabled people that it is giving to me as a non-disabled person?

machiavellianme

bucketybuck wrote: »

What is the government denying to disabled people that it is giving to me as a non-disabled person?

A forever home and a bucket load of cash every week.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

What is the government denying to disabled people that it is giving to me as a non-disabled person?

In his case his son had a neuromuscular disease which needed regular professional physiotherapy and a whole heap of associated supports which weren't forthcoming.

bucketybuck

machiavellianme wrote: »

A forever home and a bucket load of cash every week.

I can't tell if you are being facetious or not, but I certainly don't get either of those things from the government (or anybody else).

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

In his case his son had a neuromuscular disease which needed regular professional physiotherapy and a whole heap of associated supports which weren't forthcoming.

I'm just curious why you kept using the word "discrimination"?

Avatar MIA

You'll also find that Ireland has a disproportionate level of disabled people due to our stance on abortions compared to other countries.

This is likely a cost factor.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'm just curious why you kept using the word "discrimination"?

Because they are being denied rights to participate in this society to the best of their abilities by the denial of the essential state supports that would facilitate that.

_Whimsical_

bucketybuck wrote: »

What is the government denying to disabled people that it is giving to me as a non-disabled person?

The supports necessary to participate in the world. That man on the radio yesterday talked about his 15 year old son who is wheelchair bound and has server visual impairment. He's attending school and will sit his Junior cert this year. As a result of his visual impairment he needs books with much larger print that the dept of ed should be supplying him with. However while everyone in the class has started their work and Sept is drawing to a close this child still had no books and this man has to be constantly ringing trying to follow them up, trying to fight for what the child deserves. That boy has to struggle harder than every other child to do school work, it's not as if his disability is new or the dept of Ed weren't aware of his needs, yet still he's facing this extra hurdle of being a month behind his classmates because they drag their feet and won't prioritise something so essential. That's just one small example, but he said it's the same for every medical aid the child needs too. He's constantly wrangled in bureaucracy while caring for a very ill boy that he's trying to provide the basics of life for.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they are being denied rights to participate in this society to the best of their abilities by the denial of the essential state supports that would facilitate that.

Denied rights? If its a right then everybody would get them, so what are they being denied that I am not being denied?

They aren't being given extra money and assistance? Neither am I, so where is the discrimination?

Avatar MIA

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

this child still had no books and this man has to be constantly ringing trying to follow them up, trying to fight for what the child deserves.

What? The parents of children provide the books for their kids. Is this a social welfare issue - they cannot afford books?

If it's the case they need books with larger print, then are these actually available?

If it were me and my child - in this instance - I'd get a regular book and get each page enlarged. Not easy, but doable.

Spider Web

"The rest of us" meaning "Everyone else except me".

evolving_doors

bucketybuck wrote: »

Denied rights? If its a right then everybody would get them, so what are they being denied that I am not being denied?

They aren't being given extra money and assistance? Neither am I, so where is the discrimination?

Special services... so as the example above stated all the other kids can use their books fine but he needs modified ones. ...
So your probably thinking 'shur can't he go away and buy them'... but because you have zero experience of providing for a disabled child you don't realise everything else that comes along with it... and all the paperwork.
But maybe some on here prefer they just went away and hid in institutions like the good lodge days.

_Whimsical_

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What? The parents of children provide the books for their kids. Is this a social welfare issue - they cannot afford books?

If it's the case they need books with larger print, then are these actually available?

If it were me and my child - in this instance - I'd get a regular book and get each page enlarged. Not easy, but doable.

No the department of education provide them for children who have severe disabilities because there's a recognition that if your child is very severely disabled is very difficult to work and afford such things. You're attending medical appointments, you're off work everytime thryre too unwell to go to school etc, you're exhausted providing the care they need, you're not every employers dream. Almost always in these situations one parent has to give up work. Also special books with larger print, like everything else special, is very expensive. This man is up at 6 am every morning doing an hr of physio with his son as his right to sufficient physio was taken away during the recession like a lot of other things.
You might find in the same circumstances that you wouldn't have quite the time or energy to enlarge and print pages from 9 subjects everyday.
And you shouldn't have to.

The books are available and provided for such children every year, but not without a lot of difficulty and frustration for the child and patent obviously if this mans experience is typical.

bucketybuck

evolving_doors wrote: »

Special services... so as the example above stated all the other kids can use their books fine but he needs modified ones. ...
So your probably thinking 'shur can't he go away and buy them'... but because you have zero experience of providing for a disabled child you don't realise everything else that comes along with it... and all the paperwork.
But maybe some on here prefer they just went away and hid in institutions like the good lodge days.

I know full well everything else that comes along with it.

My question and point was very simple, why is this being called discrimination?

I am well aware that disabled people need extra help in various areas but people like the OP and the man being quoted would better serve their cause by being accurate in discussing it. Disabled people aren't discriminated against. They are not denied anything that isn't also denied to everybody else.

strandroad

Avatar MIA wrote: »

You'll also find that Ireland has a disproportionate level of disabled people due to our stance on abortions compared to other countries.

This is likely a cost factor.

I spoke to a woman from one of the reproductive health centres once and she said it's a bit of an urban legend. People who care about congenital/inherited conditions in their children would travel if they needed to. People who don't care will just have kids regardless.
Are there any stats on the levels of disability in Ireland (as opposed to numbers on disability allowance)?

Avatar MIA

strandroad wrote: »

Are there any stats on the levels of disability in Ireland (as opposed to numbers on disability allowance)?

Just taking Down Syndrome as an example, a UK study, but the same logic applies.

https://frank.blogs.dsegroup.org/2016/10/05/how-many-babies-would-be-born-with-down-syndrome-each-year-in-the-uk-in-the-absence-of-prenatal-screening/

evolving_doors

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What? The parents of children provide the books for their kids. Is this a social welfare issue - they cannot afford books?

If it's the case they need books with larger print, then are these actually available?

If it were me and my child - in this instance - I'd get a regular book and get each page enlarged. Not easy, but doable.

Nice try... so how many pages do you think you'd be doing for all the secondary books. I presume it would be double if you're enlarging+ colour copies
Plus... whos books are you going to get a loan off?
Photocopying school books is illegal btw.

You are also ignoring the fact that the money is there to provide this particular resource but the paperwork is slow and ridiculous... supporting evidence from occupational therapist, psychologist, teacher, l. support coordinator, signature of principal . Then the criteria and documentation changes every year so any little discrepancy and you have to reapply all over again ( before the moving cut off date which they never inform schools about). Then when you get the go ahead the school might have to purchase the material and claim the money back.
And that's just for the books.

Then rinse and repeat for learning support classes, occupational therapy, counselling, physiotherapy, assistive technology, special accommodations for exams, exemptions for spelling and grammar, exemptions from Irish, special applications for college if they get that far.
And that's just the 9-4 school stuff!

Avatar MIA

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

No the department of education provide them for children who have severe disabilities because there's a recognition that if your child is very severely disabled is very difficult to work and afford such things. You're attending medical appointments, you're off work everytime thryre too unwell to go to school etc, you're exhausted providing the care they need, you're not every employers dream. Almost always in these situations one parent has to give up work. Also special books with larger print, like everything else special, is very expensive. This man is up at 6 am every morning doing an hr of physio with his son as his right to sufficient physio was taken away during the recession like a lot of other things.
You might find in the same circumstances that you wouldn't have quite the time or energy to enlarge and print pages from 9 subjects everyday.
And you shouldn't have to.

The books are available and provided for such children every year, but not without a lot of difficulty and frustration for the child and patent obviously if this mans experience is typical.

So, they are provided or could be bought. So, it is partially a social welfare thing.

You're right, I don't have to look after kids with special needs.

However, even in the general population in whatever career, there are always those that are more active than others. I've no doubt there are parents of disabled children that wouldn't rely on the state if they thought they could put the extra effort in to get their child what they need.

Like the general population, there are some that would sit back and wait for the state to help them out.

evolving_doors

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Just taking Down Syndrome as an example, a UK study, but the same logic applies.

https://frank.blogs.dsegroup.org/2016/10/05/how-many-babies-would-be-born-with-down-syndrome-each-year-in-the-uk-in-the-absence-of-prenatal-screening/

This abortion argument is muddying the waters . The kids are here, they need help.
Isn't it great of those KW's to be able to recommend that parents 'should have aborted the kid'.
Well done.
Hope it never visits your life/bubble.

Avatar MIA

evolving_doors wrote: »

Nice try... so how many pages do you think you'd be doing for all the secondary books.

As many as required.

evolving_doors wrote: »

Photocopying school books is illegal btw.

If it came to my child's welfare I'd have zero problem with this. I know of no teachers (and I know my fair share) that would have any problems with this.

evolving_doors wrote: »

Plus... whos books are you going to get a loan off?

Seriously, is there any initiative at all expected?

Avatar MIA

evolving_doors wrote: »

This abortion argument is muddying the waters . The kids are here, they need help.
Isn't it great of those KW's to be able to recommend that parents 'should have aborted the kid'.
Well done.
Hope it never visits your life/bubble.

Stop trying to make it personal. I'm stating a fact, and the cost implications of such. The OP pointed out Ireland hasn't signed up the the convention, I pointed out another area where Ireland is different to most other countries.

Nabber

I feel sorry for people with real issues.

The resource teacher in my sons school has been tied up for the past week helping 1st class boys to deal with a change in the yard over the summer. Apparently some boys really missed the small Astro turf area.

The parents are requesting a secondary resource in the school.... It's wastage like that that pisses me off.

Widdershins

bucketybuck wrote: »

I know full well everything else that comes along with it.

My question and point was very simple, why is this being called discrimination?

I am well aware that disabled people need extra help in various areas but people like the OP and the man being quoted would better serve their cause by being accurate in discussing it. Disabled people aren't discriminated against. They are not denied anything that isn't also denied to everybody else.

An example came to my mind, my friend checks on disabled access in public buildings and apparently it's still overlooked and very inadequate. Also lack of wheelchair accessible equipment in playgrounds. There are modified swings available but despite well supported petitions the councils seem to refuse to install them in town playgrounds. So they're certainly denied things that others are not denied.

bucketybuck

Widdershins wrote: »

An example came to my mind, my friend checks on disabled access in public buildings and apparently it's still overlooked and very inadequate. Also lack of wheelchair accessible equipment in playgrounds. There are modified swings available but despite well supported petitions the councils seem to refuse to install them in town playgrounds. So they're certainly denied things that others are not denied.

Nothing you have described is discrimination. You really need to consider the point being made instead of just throwing out random examples of the struggles disabled people face.

Take your playground without the specially modified swings for example, who specifically is doing the discriminating? The swings there are open to all and sundry, not one single person is being denied the opportunity to use those swings. Not one single person is barred from using those swings. There is no discrimination.

There are people who for their own reasons cannot use the swings. Thats a shame but it is not discrimination on the part of the government or council.

You don't need an end to discrimination because there isn't any. What you need is help above and beyond what everybody else gets, thats something else entirely. And I have no problem with fighting for that extra help, I just think it helps nobody to use such a loaded term as "discrimination" when it really doesn't apply at all.

Widdershins

bucketybuck wrote: »

Nothing you have described is discrimination. You really need to consider the point being made instead of just throwing out random examples of the struggles disabled people face.

Take your playground without the specially modified swings for example, who specifically is doing the discriminating? The swings there are open to all and sundry, not one single person is being denied the opportunity to use those swings. Not one single person is barred from using those swings. There is no discrimination.

There are people who for their own reasons cannot use the swings. Thats a shame but it is not discrimination on the part of the government or council.

You don't need an end to discrimination because there isn't any. What you need is help above and beyond what everybody else gets, thats something else entirely. And I have no problem with fighting for that extra help, I just think it helps nobody to use such a loaded term as "discrimination" when it really doesn't apply at all.

That's a bizarre thing to say. The reason we have laws and rights for disabled people is because ''their own reasons'' they have no control overdisable them and it's our job and our government's job to ensure we*enable* them. ''Help beyond what anyone else gets' is required to bring them to a level of basic essential participation that everyone else needs no help to achieve. Your post is the embodiment of discrimination and lack of understanding.

There are laws about access to public facilities and amenities for disabled people and if the law doesn't say that includes facilities of playgrounds, then it should. The lackof provision for diables kids was highlighted by the public who were ignored. If that's not discrimination I dont know what it.

Also, I wasn't aiming to list the struggles disabled people face. I am highlighting a couple that most non dsabled people mightn't be aware of. And not being able to enter buildings, or children not being able to avail of the playground, is significant.

Avatar MIA

Widdershins wrote: »

And not being able to enter buildings, or children not being able to avail of the playground, is significant.

Agreed wholeheartedly with this.

bucketybuck

Widdershins wrote: »

That's a bizarre thing to say. The reason we have laws and rights for disabled people is because ''their own reasons'' they have no control overdisable them and it's our job and our government's job to ensure we*enable* them. ''Help beyond what anyone else gets' is required to bring them to a level of basic essential participation that everyone else needs no help to achieve. Your post is the embodiment of discrimination and lack of understanding.

You really don't understand the point I was making, do you?

Pherekydes

bucketybuck wrote: »

What is the government denying to disabled people that it is giving to me as a non-disabled person?

Mostly, it's just care. The government and the HSE expect the families of those with disabilities to provide 24/7/365 care, without any help, financial or otherwise. People are working themselves to death caring for loved ones with disabilities, and when they're gone the HSE have to step in and take over. If the HSE can pass this responsibility on to other family members then they will and they won't give two sh1ts.

The HSE should take on the responsibility sooner.

Edited to add: the guy mentioned in the OP is Tom Clonan. He is well known and you can google his story and background.

AndrewJRenko

bucketybuck wrote: »

Disabled people aren't discriminated against. They are not denied anything that isn't also denied to everybody else.

Yes, apart from access to healthcare, employment, transport, housing, education, arts and cultural facilities and events, social and entertainment - apart from those things (and possibly a few that I've forgotten) disabled people aren't discriminated against.

bucketybuck

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, apart from access to healthcare, employment, transport, housing, education, arts and cultural facilities and events, social and entertainment - apart from those things (and possibly a few that I've forgotten) disabled people aren't discriminated against.

Who is doing the discriminating?

AndrewJRenko

bucketybuck wrote: »

Who is doing the discriminating?

The State, private sector businesses, people, communities - take your pick.

bucketybuck

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The State, private sector businesses, people, communities - take your pick.

So the state is actively trying to discriminate against the child referenced in the OP? The "government" is sitting in a room somewhere dreaming up ways to stop that child getting the same services that everybody else gets? The community is helping every other child except that one?

Of course not. I'm not going to repeat the same simple point over and over but it is a very simple point. There is a big difference between A) actively discriminating against somebody and actively helping somebody to overcome challenges. What that child needs more of is B, what you people are talking about is A, and in doing so aren't helping the child at all.

AndrewJRenko

bucketybuck wrote: »

So the state is actively trying to discriminate against the child referenced in the OP? The "government" is sitting in a room somewhere dreaming up ways to stop that child getting the same services that everybody else gets? The community is helping every other child except that one?

Of course not. I'm not going to repeat the same simple point over and over but it is a very simple point. There is a big difference between A) actively discriminating against somebody and actively helping somebody to overcome challenges. What that child needs more of is B, what you people are talking about is A, and in doing so aren't helping the child at all.

Why did you feel the need to add the new word of 'actively' there?

Just to be clear, the Government is failing to provide children with disabilities with the same educational opportunities as other children. The Government has failed to provide people with disabilities with the same access to transport to other people - if you had to give 24 hours advance notice of every DART or coach trip, how would you feel?

Communities have failed to give people with disabilities the same opportunities for community participation by objecting to students with disabilities in classrooms and by objecting to housing for people with disabilities.

Private sector providers are failing to provide equal access to simple services like bars and restaurants by failing to provide level access at doors, failing to provide menus readable to people with sight loss, failing to provide a bathroom that can be used, failing to train staff to know that the person who sounds like a drunk may actually have just have a speech impairment.

Would you like me to continue?

Widdershins

Does it mean it's ok as long as the government aren't sitting at their desks rubbing their hands together with malicious glee, saying ''how can we discriminate against disabled people today?'' Their choices and wilful negligence amount to discrimination, it doesn't matter that there probably isn't any actual malice or conscious prejudice behind it.

I have seen some things written by Tom Clonan about these problems. If I remember correctly a big issue for him is the govt. pushing people toward care in the community when often it's care in a residential home with more supervision that they need. Can only assume it's a cost cutting thing. He was on about a campaign for equality for disabled people but I never heard anymore about it.

Gatling

One of the issues is the government and HSE are very quick to label someone as having a Disability Vs someone been Actually physical Disabilities.

boardsuser1

Trying to secure DCA and in turn carer's for my daughter is a mission i am currently on, i expect to be made jump through hoops though.

evolving_doors

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Stop trying to make it personal. I'm stating a fact, and the cost implications of such. The OP pointed out Ireland hasn't signed up the the convention, I pointed out another area where Ireland is different to most other countries.

And what's that got to do with the needs of the child in the OP's post.

evolving_doors

bucketybuck wrote: »

Who is doing the discriminating?

Have a read of the op again.

evolving_doors

Avatar MIA wrote: »

As many as required.



If it came to my child's welfare I'd have zero problem with this. I know of no teachers (and I know my fair share) that would have any problems with this.



Seriously, is there any initiative at all expected?

You still don't get it. The books aren't the only issue... it's everything else that goes with it. The books were ONE example.
It's also not a case of improvising. That's great that you would spend a few days in a photocopying shop for your kid and borrowing all the books off other students, but really there is no need.
The funds are there.
Access to them us the difficulty.

If you heard aboutbsomeone in a wheelchair struggling to get up a step and they complained about acces would you think "Seriously, is there any initiative at all expected?". But 8f it was your kid you'd go and build a step into and within every building right?

Avatar MIA

evolving_doors wrote: »

And what's that got to do with the needs of the child in the OP's post.

Economics. Simple really.

evolving_doors wrote: »

You still don't get it. The books aren't the only issue... it's everything else that goes with it. The books were ONE example.
It's also not a case of improvising.
The funds are there.
Access is not

It was a silly point to highlight, it makes for a weak/lazy argument.

evolving_doors wrote: »

You still don't get it.

This attempt at condescension is a poor cliché. Show don't tell (see, we can both make trite remarks). Let your argument make the case.

bucketybuck

evolving_doors wrote: »

Have a read of the op again.

Have a go at answering the question.

SEPT 23 1989

Hopefully people get behind this

As the guy said on the radio replace the word disabled with gay or black and see what the uproar would be like

Widdershins

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Hopefully people get behind this

As the guy said on the radio replace the word disabled with gay or black and see what the uproar would be like

Get behind what..? A march? (I've probably missed a few pages of the thread)

SEPT 23 1989

Widdershins wrote: »

Get behind what..? A march? (I've probably missed a few pages of the thread)

Equality

suicide_circus

There is a finite amount of money for social services. When non contributing pisstakers soak up more than their fair share it leaves less for more deserving cases. But if you rail against this you are a fascist.

evolving_doors

suicide_circus wrote: »

There is a finite amount of money for social services. When non contributing pisstakers soak up more than their fair share it leaves less for more deserving cases. But if you rail against this you are a fascist.

It's not that the money isn't there. It's the ridiculous process to access it.

Spider Web

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Hopefully people get behind this

As the guy said on the radio replace the word disabled with gay or black and see what the uproar would be like

Replace it with those words in what context? Nobody sane wants a disabled person or their carer to suffer.

AndrewJRenko

Widdershins wrote: »

I have seen some things written by Tom Clonan about these problems. If I remember correctly a big issue for him is the govt. pushing people toward care in the community when often it's care in a residential home with more supervision that they need. Can only assume it's a cost cutting thing.

Do you really think anyone wants to live in a 'residential home'? Do you think anyone wants to have their daily schedule dictated by staff rotas, and their daily diet dictated by a service budget? Do you think anyone wants to be restricted from making a cup of tea when they feel like making a cup of tea? Do you think anyone wants 'more supervision' instead of having the key to their own front door?

People with disabilities don't need supervision. They need support to live the lives of their own choosing. No-one chooses a residential home, except possibly those that have been so institutionalised by years of residential living that they can't see any alternative.

Widdershins

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you really think anyone wants to live in a 'residential home'? Do you think anyone wants to have their daily schedule dictated by staff rotas, and their daily diet dictated by a service budget? Do you think anyone wants to be restricted from making a cup of tea when they feel like making a cup of tea? Do you think anyone wants 'more supervision' instead of having the key to their own front door?

People with disabilities don't need supervision. They need support to live the lives of their own choosing. No-one chooses a residential home, except possibly those that have been so institutionalised by years of residential living that they can't see any alternative.

With all due respect, you're wrong. Some do choose a home. Usually their parents choose it for them because they don't have the understanding to make those choices. The difficulty I was referring to is for people whose needs are too high to allow them to cope (partly) on their own.
I wasn't suggesting that residential care is better or more suitable for anyone who is able to manage in a more independent setting. But you obviously aren't thinking of people who need support at hand/nearby.

Obviously everyone would prefer the person they currently care for to have a future of making their own tea, coming and going at their own leisure and generally looking after themselves and not being in danger at the same time. That's not the reality for everyone and saying ''independent living is better and nicer'' is never going to make independent living a realistic possibility for everyone.

I'm not even sure I didn't get Tom Clonan's point backwards, maybe he was arguing for less residential and more independent settings. But it would be an issue for some anyway. The lack of SUITABLE care in whatever form that takes is the issue, I think...

Don't forget carers of adults with alzheimers, independent living is not often an option the more it progresses.

Grab All Association

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, apart from access to healthcare, employment, transport, housing, education, arts and cultural facilities and events, social and entertainment - apart from those things (and possibly a few that I've forgotten) disabled people aren't discriminated against.

Total BS. I worked for a town council for 3½ years. Young people (mostly men) with severe mental, physical (or both) disabilities are never prioritised. It was always the voluntary sector picking up the tab to house these people.

I heard one story from a tenant of these housing charities
who despite paying €60pw for a one bed apartment in a complex had no privacy and staff would regularly come in to his "home" to 'clean' amd would throw out his stuff he wanted to keep. Photos of his late wife were binned on him.