Fr McVerry supporting lessons in how to occupy properties

TheCitizen

CruelCoin wrote: »

No.

Because that's the going rate.
If it's the rate you have an issue with then that's something to fix, by allowing more people to build, by allowing taller buildings, by relaxing the building codes that assume that every minimum wager should be going into a super-deluxe A1 rated home, etc etc.
Just whinging about the price of it isn't going to do anything. Have a point to your whinge at least.

You think it's 'whingeing' if professional young people in Dublin find it extremely difficult to buy family homes and are spending all their money on rent. Those students on the protest are attempting to bring real discussion to the issue. I think they have a point, you think they are 'whingeing'. Says a lot about you and your hopeless misunderstanding of this issue.

tayto lover

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Protest is valid in a democracy. Worked well during the water charge protests.

It did and I took part. However after the Joan Burton thing and the thug element got involved many protesters left.

TheCitizen

Chelsea Thoughtless Backspace wrote: »

This is exactly the point. No one is being hurt really if vacant properties are being occupied, except it creates an issue for the landlords, security and gardai, and the government as part of the media backlash. When the government refuse to make a decent effort, at some stage people need to make enough stress for them that the easier solution is to solve the problem at hand rather than crushing protests

The Rightist' on here and elsewhere would prefer to crack the heads of the protestors than actually God forbid tackle the issues being raised.

Wheeliebin30

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You clearly don't understand the concept of protest so.

What are you actually on about?

I know what a protest is, you don’t have to break the law to protest.

You always throw in these ridiculous riddles like the one above that mean nothing just to confuse things.

Waffle.

TheCitizen

Deleted User wrote: »

spare us the outraged handwringing over any slight on the precious fr mcverry, who loves his platform and should be subject to the criticism that comes with it like anyone else we have to hear pontificating over the airwaves about how bad his flock have it and how good the rest of us have it.

spare us the outraged handwringing over those who want houses but cant afford houses. we're all in that boat to some extent or another.

spare us the outraged handwringing that we're not free after a days working to provide for ourselves and our contribution to the shared pot through taxation that we cant then hop up on a pedestal and go full mick collins on behalf of those that dont. if we all jacked it in to do that, as the criticisms seem to wish for us, would the 'unfortunates' be worse or better off?

without taxation, tithe and charity flowing happily into the coffers of his cushy agency fr mcverry wouldnt be as much use as a single paye-subject working stiff. let his handwringers in this thread and let himself remember it.

Spare us your Rightist snowflaking whingefest

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Your own hand ringing done from the annoymintiy of a keyboard. Whereas McV is out there for your criticism.

yes, i noted that he had his platform and must take the opprobrium as befits.

whats your own name?

TheCitizen

TheCitizen wrote: »

Spare us your Rightist snowflaking whingefest

pity about ya that nobody can criticize yr hero or yr point without this level of response toots

Hitman3000

tayto lover wrote:

It did and I took part. However after the Joan Burton thing and the thug element got involved many protesters left.

They just done the sensible thing and refused to engage. The writing was on the wall when over 100k took to the streets .

Hitman3000

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

I know what a protest is, you don’t have to break the law to protest.

More often than not you do. Non payment of water charges was breaking the law until the regime was scrapped and refunds were issued .

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

whats your own name?

You first hero.

TheCitizen

Deleted User wrote: »

pity about ya that nobody can criticize yr hero or yr point without this level of response toots

At least they're trying to do something about it by highlighting the issue. Your position appears to be to criticise people who are seeking to challenge the crazy situation that has developed re the cost of accommodation in this country. It appears to upset you that your Rightist'/conservative sensibilities are challenged. Pity about you snowflake.

Gimme A Pound

Deleted User wrote: »

spare us the outraged handwringing over any slight on the precious fr mcverry, who loves his platform and should be subject to the criticism that comes with it like anyone else we have to hear pontificating over the airwaves about how bad his flock have it and how good the rest of us have it.

spare us the outraged handwringing over those who want houses but cant afford houses. we're all in that boat to some extent or another.

spare us the outraged handwringing that we're not free after a days working to provide for ourselves and our contribution to the shared pot through taxation that we cant then hop up on a pedestal and go full mick collins on behalf of those that dont. if we all jacked it in to do that, as the criticisms seem to wish for us, would the 'unfortunates' be worse or better off?

without taxation, tithe and charity flowing happily into the coffers of his cushy agency fr mcverry wouldnt be as much use as a single paye-subject working stiff. let his handwringers in this thread and let himself remember it.

The work he has done cannot be denied, to be fair.

I am critical of him following today's stunt and other revelations but what he has done (unlike most people) to help people in extreme need (not freeloaders) should not be downplayed.

Church on Tuesday

A lot of demonizing of this great man on this thread, it's quite something.

Here is a man who has probably done more for homeless people in this country, specifically in the Capital, than any politician or indeed any government has or ever will likely do.

You'd swear that the man is advocating a violent forceful takeover of properties that are long, long since vacant like he's some kind of guerrilla warfare general or something.

This man has witnessed more messed up homeless situations and horror stories in a week than most folk on here would witness in a lifetime.

Now, I'm no friend of the Catholic Church but in my opinion Fr. McVerry is a colossal human being and one of the few from that organisation that has actually got off his arse and done something for those in dire straits( and when I say dire straits I don't include wasters like that Cash woman), which is probably a good thing because, let's face it, most people don't give a toss about homeless people in this country anyways.

duffman13

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

That's one person (who incidentally, didn't even want to live in the city centre).

Working people just want to be able to afford to live within reasonable distance of where they work.

Cause and effect here. If you have as much social housing in Dublin at vastly subsidised rates from local authorities you are by extension making it more expensive for working class (I mean people who work low to medium paying jobs) people to afford to rent or buy within the 40km of the city.

The days of housing social welfare dependant people close to family must now be over in my opinion. Why is it fair one person pays a mortgage and taxes but has to live an hour from there job while another person lives next door to your job and you subsidise their house and their social welfare payments. A national housing list and refusal of a property or two drops you to the back of the list.

Turnipman

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

regardless of whether you are religious or not, maybe you believe in the historical Jesus and maybe you even admire him.

If Jesus were alive today, would he be on the side of Peter McVerry, or would he be on the side of the property speculators, or even the Catholic Church?

In my view, Peter McVerry is a man of unparallelled integrity in Irish public life. He deserves to be commended for his stance on the Frederick Street occupation. I suspect that (not unlike Jesus!), when this crisis has blown over and property-owners find that the communists haven't taken over after all, history will be on McVerry's side.

Clearly your extensive study of the New Testament overlooked the bit where Jesus told Peter McVerry to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. (Matthew 22.15-22 or Mark 12.13-17 as you prefer).

Methinks that McVerry will be going to Purgatory for a long time to purge his heresy. Maybe you'll meet him there!

Church on Tuesday

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

A lot of demonizing of this great man on this thread, it's quite something.

Here is a man who has probably done more for homeless people in this country, specifically in the Capital, than any politician or indeed any government has or ever will likely do.

You'd swear that the man is advocating a violent forceful takeover of properties that are long, long since vacant like he's some kind of guerrilla warfare general or something.

This man has witnessed more messed up homeless situations and horror stories in a week than most folk on here would witness in a lifetime.

Now, I'm no friend of the Catholic Church but in my opinion Fr. McVerry is a colossal human being and one of the few from that organisation that has actually got off his arse and done something for those in dire straits( and when I say dire straits I don't include wasters like that Cash woman), which is probably a good thing because, let's face it, most people don't give a toss about homeless people in this country anyways.

Which makes his support of these “workshops” all the more bewildering.

facehugger99

Deleted User wrote: »

This man has lost all credibility in my eye. Whatever your views on the housing situation, it’s never right to enter someone else’s property illegally. But teaching people how to do so is beyond belief.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/in-an-emergency-you-take-emergency-action-fr-mcverry-supports-take-back-the-city-workshops-on-occupying-vacant-buildings-37327369.html

He never had any - he's an economic moron peddling dangerous sh;te and has been that way for many, many years.

Why he's given any platforms mystifies me - he's better off ignored like a senile old fella.

jmayo

begbysback wrote: »

"He said that the occupation of vacant buildings is fine, once there is no violence or damage to the property"

Hes probably the only charity out there where you know your donation will go where intended.

It makes news for homelessness which is his business - why wouldn't he support it?

You do know in 2016 they employed 221 full time staff and carried out 861 training days in 2016.
Each staff member receiving on average 3 days training.

I actually would have thought that quite high for that number of staff.

They have paid for 53 members of staff to attend a Certifcate in Homeless Prevention and Intervention programme from DCU over the last few years.

They have reintroduced increments for longer serving staff and later in 2016 for newer members of staff.

McVerry does not receive a salary or expenses according to annual report, but the CEO has a salary inline with HSE payscale and is aligned to point
3 for a Director Regional Health Ofice post.
They don't offer him car, fuel card or pay health insurance, but they do make a 16% employer contribution to the CEO’s defined contribution pension scheme.

All salaries paid to staff of Peter McVerry Trust are in line with HSE pay scales.

That is worrying enough.

Now in 2016 they had funding of 17,728,773.
State Funding accounted for 10,720,906
and private/corporate donations and fundraising accounted for 7,007,867

Expenditure came in at 17,711,609

Total reserves came in at 11,033,131

In 2015 they had fixed assets of 19,692,887, current assets of 3,634,325, current liabilities of 961,434 and long term liabilities of 1,181,044.

They own over 200 properties.

BTW their fundraising costs have been hovering at over 550,000 annually over the last couple of years.
What exactly are the fundraising costs ?
Are they paying people out on the street chugging ?
Are they paying for media campaigns ?


Most people's ideas of charity is misplaced.
This is more like a business.

And it is yet another example of the state paying someone else to deal with problems.

James Brown

DChancer wrote: »

Total agree.
I have long believed he is a part of the problem rather than the solution, loves to peddle the idea of the "entitlement" culture.

The government set rules and they are followed.
You can feel entitled all you like but unless FG/FF organise it, a feeling is all you'll have.
Funny how people and parties who've never been in government get the blame for FF/FG policies.
I'd say Noonan's Cerberus feel pretty entitled.

hatrickpatrick

TheBoyConor wrote: »

The Constitution of this state includes a right to private property.
The government should be enforcing this right.

/occupy

That clause is definitely an issue. Given the current situation, with the right re-wording on the table, I'm fairly sure an amendment would pass to dilute it in certain circumstances. But it'd take exceptionally brave politicians to go down road, sadly.

hatrickpatrick

NIMAN wrote: »

... who are doing nothing illegal.

If I buy a property in central Dublin, I can leave it lying empty for 100 years if I want.

Unless the Gov changes laws of course. They are the ones to aim your vitriol at, not the owners of properties.

That's the point of the protest, to try to help persuade the government to change that very law and to get more of the public on board with lobbying for it.

Furthermore, just because you're legally allowed to do something, doesn't automatically mean that doing it doesn't make you an absolute scumbag who people have a legitimate case to protest against.

Gimme A Pound

facehugger99 wrote: »

He never had any - he's an economic moron peddling dangerous sh;te and has been that way for many, many years.

Why he's given any platforms mystifies me

Because he is one of the few people who has actually helped the very badly off - and for decades. I know he's not beyond criticism but people seem to be losing sight of his many positive achievements, which weren't easy.

Fr_Dougal

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

regardless of whether you are religious or not, maybe you believe in the historical Jesus and maybe you even admire him.

If Jesus were alive today, would he be on the side of Peter McVerry, or would he be on the side of the property speculators, or even the Catholic Church?

In my view, Peter McVerry is a man of unparallelled integrity in Irish public life. He deserves to be commended for his stance on the Frederick Street occupation. I suspect that (not unlike Jesus!), when this crisis has blown over and property-owners find that the communists haven't taken over after all, history will be on McVerry's side.

Commandment says you’re wrong:

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor ANYTHING that is your neighbor’s.” (Exodus 20:17)

Wheeliebin30

Jensen White Robot wrote: »

Because he is one of the few people who has actually helped the very badly off - and for decades. I know he's not beyond criticism but people seem to be losing sight of his many positive achievements, which weren't easy.

He helped robber thieves junkies etc with money donated to his charity.

**** him.

LuckyLloyd

Every vacant useable property left idle that is peacefully occupied highlights the issue further and pushes the government towards the inevitable action: a vacancy tax. That and severe short term letting restrictions will alleviate the current crisis in urban areas significantly.

Then we need more building, more building upwards, metrolink to make living in North and South County Dublin more practical etc, etc. There are many aspects to this problem, but these direct actions are strongly highlighting issues that can be alleviated with straightforward legislation. It's a good and practical place to start.

Wheeliebin30

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Every vacant useable property left idle that is peacefully occupied highlights the issue further and pushes the government towards the inevitable action: a vacancy tax. That and severe short term letting restrictions will alleviate the current crisis in urban areas significantly.

Then we need more building, more building upwards, metrolink to make living in North and South County Dublin more practical etc, etc. There are many aspects to this problem, but these direct actions are strongly highlighting issues that can be alleviated with straightforward legislation. It's a good and practical place to start.

Have you a costing for this building from the government and where the money will come from?

AlekSmart

facehugger99 wrote: »

He never had any - he's an economic moron peddling dangerous sh;te and has been that way for many, many years.

Why he's given any platforms mystifies me - he's better off ignored like a senile old fella.

I never bought into the Peter McVerry "thing",but his gift was being in the right place at the right time,for the right media people.

Thus he became the voice of "Homelessness",with little attention ever paid to those who lived near his facilities,and had to deal with the collateral that came along with them.

If it's true dedication to a cause,and painstaking hard slogging you want,then look no further then Brother Kevin Crowley....

http://www.capuchindaycentre.ie/Capuchin_Day_Centre_2013/Capuchin_Day_Centre_for_Homeless_People.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HGqiFKNick

n!ghtmancometh

Deleted User wrote: »

So, it’s ok to break into uninhabitable properties and refuse to leave? Would these properties be acceptable to homeless people if they were offered by Fr McVerry or any homeless organisation?

It’s ok to teach people how to break into these dwellings and teach them how to avoid eviction?

WOW.

Considering the absolute crisis that is occurring, and the FG landlord led governments reluctance to tax vacant properties/sites that could be used for housing (like most sensible countries do) then yes. What is the alternative to focus people's attention? news reports and countless studies don't seem to be doing the trick to capture peoples attention.

If we fail to remedy the problem now, we are setting future generations up for failure, and all the (costly) social and societal problems this entails. I don't think most people grasp how serious this issue is. Certainly those in power do not.

you're assuming everyone believes there is an "absolute crisis"

perhaps you need to consider that lots of people at all levels simply disagree with the extent of this "absolute crisis" as well as disagreeing that the way to solve it, if it exists, is the way demonstrated this week by these eejits.

begbysback

jmayo wrote: »

You do know in 2016 they employed 221 full time staff and carried out 861 training days in 2016.
Each staff member receiving on average 3 days training.

I actually would have thought that quite high for that number of staff.

They have paid for 53 members of staff to attend a Certifcate in
Homeless Prevention and Intervention programme from DCU over the last few years.

They have reintroduced increments for longer serving staff and later in 2016 for newer members of staff.

You seem to have all the figures, can you also add here the percentage of those employees which are maybe former homeless and are now employed by McVerry?

jmayo wrote: »

McVerry does not receive a salary or expenses according to annual report but the CEO has a salary inline with HSE payscale and is aligned to point
3 for a Director Regional Health Ofice post.
They don't offer him car, fuel card or pay health insurance but they do make a 16% employer contribution to the CEO’s defined contribution pension scheme.
All salaries paid to staff of Peter McVerry Trust are in line with HSE pay scales.

That is worrying enough.

Really? ive yet to meet anyone in the private sector who has moved to public sector for the pay.

jmayo wrote: »

Now in 2016 they had funding of 17,728,773.
State Funding accounted for 10,720,906
and private/corporate donations and fundraising accounted for 7,007,867

Expenditure came in at 17,711,609

Total reserves came in at 11,033,131

In 2015 they had fixed assets of 19,692,887, current assets of 3,634,325, current liabilities of 961,434 and long term liabilities of 1,181,044.

They own over 200 properties.

BTW their fundraising costs have been hovering at over 550,000 annually over the last couple of years.
What exactly are the fundraising costs ?
Are they paying people out on the street chugging ?
Are they paying for media campaigns ?


Most people's ideas of charity is misplaced.
This is more like a business.

And it is yet another example of the state paying someone else to deal with problems.

All major charities are run like businesses - they are in the business of highlighting the need for something.

Maybe its the states way of employing McVerry?