More homeless fake news.

Jinglejangle69

How do the papers get away with such lies?



https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/pregnant-dublin-woman-living-flimsy-21439983?fbclid=IwAR21W4e_C7ouFAKvosx84baW3rTl_2ewOxnF9M0YEvJGjl-5wvPymwEJD5g

"Pregnant Dublin woman living in flimsy tent challenges Taoiseach over homeless hell"

Nice headline grabber, then right conveniently at the end it actually saumys:

"A DRHE spokeswoman added last night: “I can confirm this couple were offered emergency accommodation when they recently presented to homeless services, but did not wish to take up this offer. They have since been offered alternative emergency accommodation and have accepted this offer.”

So basically she isn't living in a tent.

Boggles

The Mirror, fake news?

Fúck off.

:eek:

Yurt2

At no point was this woman ever homeless. There is no such thing as homeless people. Fine Gael TDs have personally built 376'000 homes this year, and they are affordable. Something, something Venezuela. Vote Blueshirt this Saturday.

Effects

Yurt! wrote: »

Fine Gael TDs have personally built 376'000 homes this year, and they are affordable.

Where are these houses, and how affordable are they?

gifted

Effects wrote: »

Where are these houses, and how affordable are they?

A lot more affordable than my bloody mortgage....

Boggles

Effects wrote: »

Where are these houses, and how affordable are they?

Leitrim, Fitty Bucks!

Yurt2

Effects wrote: »

Where are these houses, and how affordable are they?

There's loads of them, take your pick. Eoghan Murphy built them all. Rolled up his sleeves.

Those people on the streets are hobbyists and spongers. There's a good reason why rent in Dublin costs more than Tokyo or Sydney. It's because Fine Gael are awesome and anyone who says otherwise is a WASTER.

Jinglejangle69

Yurt! wrote: »

There's loads of them, take your pick. Eoghan Murphy built them all. Rolled up his sleeves.

Those people on the streets are hobbyists and spongers. There's a good reason why rent in Dublin costs more than Tokyo or Sydney. It's because Fine Gael are awesome and anyone who says otherwise is a WASTER.

Anything to say about the lies peddled in the OP?

Constant lies everyday and people just accept it.

But if the government say anything we'll their éis uproar about spin and lies.

Yurt2

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Anything to say about the lies peddled in the OP?

Constant lies everyday and people just accept it.

But if the government say anything we'll their éis uproar about spin and lies.

MY TAXEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

No homeless. Fake news. Venezuela.

I'mahardworkingcleverboy

Blaze420

Yurt! wrote: »

MY TAXEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

No homeless. Fake news. Venezuela.

I'mahardworkingcleverboy

De homeliss, won’t sum1 think of the babas in the hotels, 10000 homeliss!!! Why are they spending money on elections when there’s people HOMELISS!!? Vote Sinn Fein

Am I doing this right?

Yurt2

Blaze420 wrote: »

De homeliss, won’t sum1 think of the babas in the hotels, 10000 homeliss!!! Why are they spending money on elections when there’s people HOMELISS!!? Vote Sinn Fein

Am I doing this right?

6/10 - Good first effort but needs some work

Plumbthedepths

This is funny, the OP accepts there is circa 10 to 15,000 homeless in Denmark but is only willing to accept roughly 150 homeless in Ireland. International homeless criteria only applies outside Ireland in the OP"s view.
The blinkered view of life because of blind party allegiance is actually rather disturbing.

Oranage2

Genuine Question:

I rent, am I homeless?

Plumbthedepths

Oranage2 wrote: »

Genuine Question:

I rent, am I homeless?

https://www.simon.ie/Homelessness/Homelessness.aspx

This should help.

McMurphy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Anything to say about the lies peddled in the OP?

Constant lies everyday and people just accept it.

But if the government say anything we'll their éis uproar about spin and lies.

Anything to say about Leo completely trying to mislead the public on the debate show the other night when he said vulture and Cuckoo funds only represent 1 or 2 percent of all transactions in property last year?

Problem is, pat Kenny pulled him up on it yesterday morning, and Leo had no counter for him.

Kenny said he was being completely disingenuous, because transactions isn't a fair metric if you're buying in bulk as these organisations do.

Simply put, a family buying a semi detached house are registered as buying a property, and a vulture fund buying an entire complex with 4 or 500 apartments is also registered as buying a property.

Pat Kenny said they own in and around the mid 40% of new builds recently provided, and they're only offering them out on long term renting/leasing plans.

Why would Leo want to downplay it do you think?

Oranage2

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

https://www.simon.ie/Homelessness/Homelessness.aspx

This should help.

Thanks, I've another genuine question, would my wife be considered homeless then?

Plumbthedepths

Oranage2 wrote: »

Thanks, I've another genuine question, would my wife be considered homeless then?

Did you kick her out?

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

MY TAXEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

No homeless. Fake news. Venezuela.

I'mahardworkingcleverboy

you on overtime?

the quality of your work is suffering, tbh

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

Anything to say about Leo completely trying to mislead the public on the debate show the other night when he said vulture and Cuckoo funds only represent 1 or 2 percent of all transactions in property last year?

Problem is, pat Kenny pulled him up on it yesterday morning, and Leo had no counter for him.

Kenny said he was being completely disingenuous, because transactions isn't a fair metric if you're buying in bulk as these organisations do.

Simply put, a family buying a semi detached house are registered as buying a property, and a vulture fund buying an entire complex with 4 or 500 apartments is also registered as buying a property.

Pat Kenny said they own in and around the mid 40% of new builds recently provided, and they're only offering them out on long term renting/leasing plans.

Why would Leo want to downplay it do you think?

genuine concern and a fair point well raised- kudos

families struggling with buying houses isnt much to do with hysteria over """""""10000""""""" """""homeless""""" tho, imo

seamus

Homeless figures are dropping, rents are dropping, house prices are dropping.

It think it's fair to say that while the "leave the market at it" approach created some short-term pain, it's working out.

If FF had been let at it, we'd be putting billions into builders' pockets to inflate house prices. If SF had been let at it, we'd be throwing up substandard rubbish everywhere and house waiting lists would be twice as long as they are now.

The story in the OP is just the media and their misery porn obsession.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

genuine concern and a fair point well raised- kudos

families struggling with buying houses isnt much to do with hysteria over """""""10000""""""" """""homeless""""" tho, imo

Yeah, but if these lads are snapping up 40% of new builds, and Kenny conceded that developers shouldn't be faulted, as they'll take the money where ever they can get it (as any business would) - it's no wonder we've a rental and housing crises.

The fact the Taoiseach of the country is trying to mislead/fudge the figures on the reality, while his housing minister (and health minister) seem to be locked away out of sight makes it all the more evident that they've fcuked up on an epic scale and they don't want to admit it.

Jinglejangle69

McMurphy wrote: »

Yeah, but if these lads are snapping up 40% of new builds, and Kenny conceded that developers shouldn't be faulted, as they'll take the money where ever they can get it (as any business would) - it's no wonder we've a rental and housing crises.

The fact the Taoiseach of the country is trying to mislead/fudge the figures on the reality, while his housing minister (and health minister) seem to be locked away out of sight makes it all the more evident that they've fcuked up on an epic scale and they don't want to admit it.

1-2% of transactions are cuckoo funds.

Up to 40% in a new development has been bought by them in some sites.

Still 1-2% overall of transactions.

What's the fudging?

Thats pretty undisputed.

Oranage2

I've a feeling that even if housing became affordable we'd still have a homeless 'crisis' with people still wanting 'free homes'.

optogirl

Oranage2 wrote: »

I've a feeling that even if housing became affordable we'd still have a homeless 'crisis' with people still wanting 'free homes'.

Christ, is this still a thing? Nobody wants or indeed gets a 'free home'. No doubt they are also abandoning the brand new buggy & car they got the moment they stepped off the boat in order to get even brander newer ones. Stop reading tabloids.

McMurphy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

1-2% of transactions are cuckoo funds.

Up to 40% in a new development has been bought by them in some sites.

Still 1-2% overall of transactions.

What's the fudging?

Thats pretty undisputed.

You know where the fudging is, when put to Leo that the housing/rental crises was due in a large part to the vulture funds, it was completely disingenuous and downright codology for Leo to say they only represented a few percent of transactions, if those transactions covered forty odd percent of what was available.

You know this, but play along with the innocence, it's doing your persona no favours.

Plumbthedepths

McMurphy wrote: »

You know where the fudging is, when put to Leo that the housing/rental crises was due in a large part to the vulture funds, it was completely disingenuous and downright codology for Leo to say they only represented a few percent of transactions, if those transactions covered forty odd percent of what was available.

You know this, but play along with the innocence, it's doing your persona no favours.

Do you actually take this poster seriously?

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

Yeah, but if these lads are snapping up 40% of new builds, and Kenny conceded that developers shouldn't be faulted, as they'll take the money where ever they can get it (as any business would) - it's no wonder we've a rental and housing crises.

The fact the Taoiseach of the country is trying to mislead/fudge the figures on the reality, while his housing minister (and health minister) seem to be locked away out of sight makes it all the more evident that they've fcuked up on an epic scale and they don't want to admit it.

i dont disagree at all, really. FG have badly ****ed up in leaving the market at it.

But the focus should be on provision, and then the priority should be on quality affordable housing for those paying their own way first.

And 10k homeless is a bald attempt to prioritise those contributing least by acting the bollix with figures and definitions

jimgoose

Yurt! wrote: »

MY TAXEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

No homeless. Fake news. Venezuela.

I'mahardworkingcleverboy

Es ist zeit für rache! Wir müssen die Juden ausrotten!! Vote Blueshirt and drive the poor back into the sea from whence they came, like a shitload of smelly Kraken with weird accents and funny clothes!

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

Christ, is this still a thing? Nobody wants or indeed gets a 'free home'. No doubt they are also abandoning the brand new buggy & car they got the moment they stepped off the boat in order to get even brander newer ones. Stop reading tabloids.

it's still a thing

because if the contribution you pay for your home is provided to you for nothing

then its free

to you

not to the taxpayer, who pays for it

and then pays extra because of your home being free so competition is increased in an already blown market

and then lives a hundred miles away because you deserve to be on a handy bus route in a handy area, and the punter can only afford to live in the back arse of commuter land

so yes, its free, yes its still a thing, yes these points are always raised by someone protesting the definition and no those same people never really address the above response.

Jinglejangle69

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

1-2% of transactions are cuckoo funds.

Up to 40% in a new development has been bought by them in some sites.

Still 1-2% overall of transactions.

What's the fudging?

Thats pretty undisputed.

mcmurphy is right- FG playing cute with figurea like this in order to avoid the substantial point is the type of "lalalala not listening" soundbites they are campaigning on, and its going to see them battered in this election.

Oranage2

optogirl wrote: »

Christ, is this still a thing? Nobody wants or indeed gets a 'free home'. No doubt they are also abandoning the brand new buggy & car they got the moment they stepped off the boat in order to get even brander newer ones. Stop reading tabloids.

Isn't it a fact that there's a housing list, social hosing, rent allowance, temporary accommodation and emergency accommodation etc.

So yes 'free houses' are still a thing. You're wrong.

optogirl

Deleted User wrote: »

it's still a thing

because if the contribution you pay for your home is provided to you for nothing

then its free

to you

not to the taxpayer, who pays for it

and then pays extra because of your home being free so competition is increased in an already blown market

and then lives a hundred miles away because you deserve to be on a handy bus route in a handy area, and the punter can only afford to live in the back arse of commuter land

so yes, its free, yes its still a thing, yes these points are always raised by someone protesting the definition and no those same people never really address the above response.

Show me somebody who got a free house. And I don't mean someone who is paying subsidised rent as they don't own a house. Social housing tenants pay in the region of 350 million annually to local authorities in rent.

optogirl

Oranage2 wrote: »

Isn't it a fact that there's a housing list, social hosing, rent allowance, temporary accommodation and emergency accommodation etc.

So yes 'free houses' are still a thing. You're wrong.

You consider emergency accommodation getting handed a free house?

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

Show me somebody who got a free house. And I don't mean someone who is paying subsidised rent as they don't own a house. Social housing tenants pay in the region of 350 million annually to local authorities in rent.

im not awful bothered by what you mean

your housing needs are met from the exchequer, you are getting a free house

if we disagree on the finer points, meh

im paying rent, i get a house for what i pay, simples

Blaze420

optogirl wrote: »

You consider emergency accommodation getting handed a free house?

Answer me this - why do you think so many children are being born in emergency accommodation? Have a good think about it before you reply.

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

im not awful bothered by what you mean

your housing needs are met from the exchequer, you are getting a free house

if we disagree on the finer points, meh

im paying rent, i get a house for what i pay, simples

C'mon now, you know full well every social housing tenant is billed rent. The amounts me be small in many instances but saying 'free house' is as big a lie as any made in this thread. It's factually incorrect.

If you want to make the case for higher social housing rents to put the system on a more sustainable footing make it, I'd be among those that might agree with you, but stop telling porkies.

Oranage2

Yurt! wrote: »

C'mon now, you know full well every social housing tenant is billed rent. The amounts me be small in many instances but saying 'free house' is as big a lie as any made in this thread. It's factually incorrect.

If you want to make the case for higher social housing rents to put the system on a more sustainable footing make it, I'd be among those that might agree with you, but stop telling porkies.

I don't know the percentages but a lot of the people will be using their welfare to pay is, so free in way.

Yurt2

Oranage2 wrote: »

I don't know the percentages but a lot of the people will be using their welfare to pay is, so free in way.

Goalposts. Where did they go? I can't see them.

collywobble7

Oranage2 wrote:

Genuine Question:

Oranage2 wrote:

I rent, am I homeless?

Of course...you haven't been provided with a free house. Disgraceful

Blaze420

Yurt! wrote: »

Goalposts. Where did they go? I can't see them.

If you don’t work, have never worked and receive welfare payments, then a house on top of that for which a meagre rent is charged, which you pay from the welfare you never worked for - that’s essentially a free house by any stretch isn’t it?

whisky_galore

It's gas that all these people enraged about 'de homeless' are posting from warm comfy beds or air con offices and never had to choose which doorway to sleep in their lives.

Plumbthedepths

Yurt! wrote: »

C'mon now, you know full well every social housing tenant is billed rent. The amounts me be small in many instances but saying 'free house' is as big a lie as any made in this thread. It's factually incorrect.

If you want to make the case for higher social housing rents to put the system on a more sustainable footing make it, I'd be among those that might agree with you, but stop telling porkies.

I lived in a social house with my family till May 2004. The weekly rent I was paying was 114 euro. The mortgage on my house was less than a month's rent.

dundalkfc10

Blaze420 wrote: »

Answer me this - why do you think so many children are being born in emergency accommodation? Have a good think about it before you reply.

People who have no money like sex like everyone else and cannot afford contraception?

optogirl

Blaze420 wrote: »

Answer me this - why do you think so many children are being born in emergency accommodation? Have a good think about it before you reply.

I wouldn't presume to be able to answer that question because there are too many variables and happily I don't subscribe to the notion that poverty is a choice or that most people are on the make.

Yurt2

Blaze420 wrote: »

If you don’t work, have never worked and receive welfare payments, then a house on top of that for which a meagre rent is charged, which you pay from the welfare you never worked for - that’s essentially a free house by any stretch isn’t it?

Go back and edit your post so. 'Essentially' free homes (but not really) for those social housing tenants who happen to be on the live register, but not really.

Looks a little better but is still right wing angryman b*llocks.

Blaze420

Yurt! wrote: »

Go back and edit your post so. 'Essentially' free homes (but not really) for those social housing tenants who happen to be on the live register, but not really.

Looks a little better but is still right wing angryman b*llocks.

Nothing angry about me, I simply don’t subscribe to the free **** for everyone bollixolgy you’ve clearly signed up to.

jimgoose

Yurt! wrote: »

Go back and edit your post so. 'Essentially' free homes (but not really) for those social housing tenants who happen to be on the live register, but not really.

Looks a little better but is still right wing angryman b*llocks.

You forgot "triggered", "gammon" and "OK Boomer". :pac:

Blaze420

optogirl wrote: »

I wouldn't presume to be able to answer that question because there are too many variables and happily I don't subscribe to the notion that poverty is a choice or that most people are on the make.

I’ll give you a hint - each one extra of these you have while on the list is the difference between an extra bedroom or not. Any logical person would be trying to avoid bringing children in to such an environment - I wonder why it’s so rampant among the “homeless”??

Yurt2

Blaze420 wrote: »

Nothing angry about me, I simply don’t subscribe to the free **** for everyone bollixolgy you’ve clearly signed up to.

Like I said, right wing angryman b*llocks.

Oranage2

optogirl wrote: »

I wouldn't presume to be able to answer that question because there are too many variables and happily I don't subscribe to the notion that poverty is a choice or that most people are on the make.

Do you think if houses became affordable that that would solve the 'homeless crisis'?

Blaze420

Yurt! wrote: »

Like I said, right wing angryman b*llocks.

As opposed to the naive bollocks you have on display?