"None of our children on the list are getting these houses"

Helgagirl

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Why is being a junkie a disability?

Why do you assume I was referring to people with drug addictions just because I mentioned disability allowance. People have genuine reasons to apply for this through being disabled (and I don't mean because of drugs or alcohol) where maybe they either can't find or are unable to work because of a disability. If you are trying to imply I am a drug addict then I hate to disappoint you, because I neither drink, smoke or take any drugs other than a paracetemol!
I find your comment to be extremely insulting to all the people living with a disability.
Having gotten onto this forum to try to keep informed about current topics I am now thinking it's one of the worst decisions I ever made because I can live without the hate and nastiness.

Helgagirl

Helgagirl wrote: »

Why do you assume I was referring to people with drug addictions just because I mentioned disability allowance. People have genuine reasons to apply for this through being disabled (and I don't mean because of drugs or alcohol) where maybe they either can't find or are unable to work because of a disability. If you are trying to imply I am a drug addict then I hate to disappoint you, because I neither drink, smoke or take any drugs other than a paracetemol!
I find your comment to be extremely insulting to all the people living with a disability.
Having gotten onto this forum to try to keep informed about current topics I am now thinking it's one of the worst decisions I ever made because I can live without the hate and nastiness.

You said it's very stringent and difficult to obtain disability benefit. I asked if that's the case, how can drug addicts get disability.

You failed to answer but then get faux insulted. Grow up, it's a harsh world outside.

Helgagirl

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You said it's very stringent and difficult to obtain disability benefit. I asked if that's the case, how can drug addicts get disability.

You failed to answer but then get faux insulted. Grow up, it's a harsh world outside.

You didn't ask' how' drug addicts can get a disability allowance, what you said was 'Why is being a Junkie a disability?' that doesn't have the same meaning! I never mentioned anything about drug addicts in my original post. There are protocols involved in applying for disability allowance that was the point I was trying to make,it isn't just that you apply for it and it's handed to you regardless. I don't make up the rules nor did I say I agreed with drug addicts receiving it! Possibly drug addicts end up with mental health problems from taking drugs, which would mean they fit the criteria for getting it,this is just a suggestion and I am not condoning drug taking, or disability allowance being given to drug addicts! My point was that there are very sweeping judgements made on here constantly and the other point I was trying to make was about Childrens Allowance, it is paid to everyone who has a child, if you read some comments on here you would think it is only given to people who are on social welfare. And also I am not on social welfare, before you throw that at me! I know it's a harsh world out there, but I don't think coming onto forums being horrible to each other is the way to make it any better. I not 'faux insulted' I am insulted not just by your comment, but by every comment that assumes because a person lives in social housing they have their hand out, are spongers, have free houses, are all lazy, drug addicts, and all the other nasty things that are being said here. My family lives in social housing and we are none of the above. If the people paying exorbitant rents were offered social housing how many of them would refuse?

Idbatterim

GreeBo wrote: »

Why do they need to "get around"?
For what exactly? Commuting to their non existent job?

The people we are talking about here are the long term welfare recipients, in some cases its generational. Housing them in the desirable locations that have infrastructure that they dont need is a waste of resources.

exactly! all they need is their expensive tv package and an area with multiple fast food delivery options! simple creatues! oh and I forgot a pub!

Antares35

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, yeah, sure.



work where? what employer would employ those people if they are as you claim? none with any sense i would expect.

Yeah because they CAN'T get a job. That's why they dont work... right.

smurgen

Is this woman who rang liveline the rich persons equivalent to Margaret Cash?

https://twitter.com/evelynharte/status/1232424975438512128?s=19

end of the road

Antares35 wrote: »

Yeah because they CAN'T get a job. That's why they dont work... right.

yes, that is exactly the reason.
employers don't tend to take on people who fit the description of that particular poster.
of course this is all hypothetical, as the poster is describing people as he described them, from what i can see based on nothing.

Gatling

Here's another one man trying to inherit his mothers council house after she passed away,this particular house is part of estate for OAPs


http://www.echo.ie/news/article/man-62-faces-eviction-by-county-council

Eric Cartman

Gatling wrote: »

Here's another one man trying to inherit his mothers council house after she passed away,this particular house is part of estate for OAPs


http://www.echo.ie/news/article/man-62-faces-eviction-by-county-council

To be fair I can see that lads argument in this case, its a 1 bed, in a development for OAP's and he's on the cusp of becoming one with almost no chance of gaining employment, the administrative cost of moving him out of there and shuffling him to hostels etc.. would be a complete waste of resources. Its not like he's been taking up an additional property that could be useful for many others. Its theoretically the smallest, most suitable place to put him and would keep him from potentially taking up an apartment in a town from somebody who may actually need it (as small a portion of the housing list as that is)

Gatling

Eric Cartman wrote: »

To be fair I can see that lads argument in this case, its a 1 bed, in a development for OAP's and he's on the cusp of becoming one with almost no chance of gaining employment, the administrative cost of moving him out of there and shuffling him to hostels etc..

Wasn't this the Idea behind stopping people inheriting social housing , plenty of others have been evicted in the same circumstances ,
Personally I think he should have been evicted sooner he obviously wasn't homeless before moving into property

Eric Cartman

Gatling wrote: »

Wasn't this the Idea behind stopping people inheriting social housing , plenty of others have been evicted in the same circumstances ,
Personally I think he should have been evicted sooner he obviously wasn't homeless before moving into property

I re read that and it says he moved in in 2015 but never says when she did. The way it read was as if he had been there the entire time with her (which im sure is no accident on the journos part) , but if he was somewhere else 5 years ago and is only there now then I agree. Lifetime live at home adult children being turfed out at 62 years of age would be a disgrace but if he's gaming it for the house then he can jog on.

Antares35

end of the road wrote: »

yes, that is exactly the reason.
employers don't tend to take on people who fit the description of that particular poster.
of course this is all hypothetical, as the poster is describing people as he described them, from what i can see based on nothing.

Many people dont want to be employed, and many other people cannot accept this.

end of the road

Antares35 wrote: »

Many people dont want to be employed, and many other people cannot accept this.

there are a small number of such people yes.

Deebles McBeebles

end of the road wrote: »

there are a small number of such people yes.

I would say its an unacceptably large number personally but its all relative. I am speaking exclusively about the people who would sleep on the floor if there was work in bed, not about people who actually need state assistance.

Antares35

end of the road wrote: »

there are a small number of such people yes.

I'd disagree.

zell12

The Sinnotts, who are renting with the help of the HAP in Kilmore Co Wexford, have six kids aged between 3 and 18
Family-of-eight on housing waiting list for 12 years hit out at 'inconsistency' in policies
Wexford family of eight tell of struggle to get suitable council house

Idbatterim

this bull**** below is from the mirror article. What will it cost the council to knock that partition? twenty thousand :rolleyes: let them have the bloody house! you know what? sell it to them if they can actually pay for it! I am on the fence about selling off expensive housing, but if you are virtually giving them away for free with a pittance rent, selling probably does make sense!

It has four bedrooms but the council plans on knocking down a partition wall in the front room, making it a three-bed house which the council said is not big enough to house the family.

Lyndsey said: “The housing officer for this area told us if the partition passed their standards they would leave it as a four-bed house and if not they would remove it.


“If it passes we are top of the list for a four-bed house. However, the council engineer has assessed this house and has said they are removing the partition and turning the front room back into a single room which would mean we could not take the house.

BanditLuke

end of the road wrote: »

there are a small number of such people yes.

It's a tiny percentage alright but people like to paint everyone with the same brush.

batman_oh

end of the road wrote: »

there are a small number of such people yes.

The highest number of entire families were nobody can be bothered working in the EU though. In a country with some of the lowest unemployment and highest benefits for doing nothing but lobbing out kids.

Who'd have thunk it

Idbatterim

batman_oh wrote: »

The highest number of entire families were nobody can be bothered working in the EU though. In a country with some of the lowest unemployment and highest benefits for doing nothing but lobbing out kids.

Who'd have thunk it

it is obscene, but makes such sense. Say you work, you have to commute, usually by car or public transport, if you have kids childcare is a rip off, if you need housing, you can sit in a social house and get it as good as free. the system is totally fcuked! Whats the alternative for many? a life of misery working for **** money etc...

Many would be far better off just letting the totally fcuked system just pay them to sit around, it makes sense. Its the system that is crazy!

The cost of putting a roof over your head and child care has gone up hugely. Wages havent. You would swear they dont want people to work in this country. Its a massive problem, when the media and then the spineless politicians think " we have to do everything for de vulneable" while if you arent working, you are deemed secure, happy out. These people that then used to vote FG etc, thinking they represented hard workers, have been betrayed. Why? because FG spent far more time looking after those that would never vote for them, for optic purposes, rather than represent those who put them there! Pathetic stuff!

That varadkar rat and his side kicks, were too scared to go onto RTE etc and confront claire byrne etc, about why they wouldnt have increased welfare and would have instead rewarded workers. Given they wont make any decisions or actually lead, I am surprised they get out of bed in the morning, if they lived in bed, they wouldnt even have to make a decision on what to wear!

Idbatterim

BanditLuke wrote: »

It's a tiny percentage alright but people like to paint everyone with the same brush.

there are a ridiculous amount here getting as good as free housing. ridiculous welfare rates paid out to many young people, which just encourages a cycle of dependency. A sizeable number, who government just think "we will give up on them" here, have hundreds of thousands of euro, no questions asked,have a free travel pass, medical card, housing etc...

Their usual budget buster grey vote bribe days, are long, long gone though! for many reasons, thats a start at least!

end of the road

BanditLuke wrote: »

It's a tiny percentage alright but people like to paint everyone with the same brush.

absolutely correct.
thankfully there are plenty of people who see it for what it is and will challenge and debunk it.

batman_oh wrote: »

The highest number of entire families were nobody can be bothered working in the EU though. In a country with some of the lowest unemployment and highest benefits for doing nothing but lobbing out kids.

Who'd have thunk it

well, first of all we don't know that everyone within those families actually can't be bothered working. some no doubt are like that and no employer would want them anyway, however others might want to work, but will not have any work requiring doing that they can do. ireland is a small country, so there will only ever be a certain amount of work requiring doing, and no doubt there will be someone doing all of what is required to be done.
secondly, people don't get money for simply lobbing out children, they get money to support children that they have, that money is for the children and not them.

Kivaro

batman_oh wrote: »

The highest number of entire families were nobody can be bothered working in the EU though. In a country with some of the lowest unemployment and highest benefits for doing nothing but lobbing out kids.

Who'd have thunk it

Don't we have the highest number of people on disability in the EU too?
Entire generations of families who do not want to work; yet expect to be housed in the locations needed by workers the most. And don't forget their other entitlements of free medical cards, free travel, free, free, free.
There is also the correlation of these very same people through their criminality and anti-social behaviour causing havoc and stress to the working people who are paying for their entitled lifestyle.

If an alien came down from Space, this scenario would be very difficult to explain.

end of the road

Idbatterim wrote: »

there are a ridiculous amount here getting as good as free housing.

no there arent. there is a small amount getting subsidized housing, because they are unable to afford to house themselves due to their economic situation. many of those people are working.

Idbatterim wrote: »

ridiculous welfare rates paid out to many young people, which just encourages a cycle of dependency.

non-ridiculous wellfare rates, but rates necessary to insure one can support themselves, in a country with a high cost of living.
wellfare dependency exists in many countries such as the uk, US, and i suspect many other countries. it is not something that is possible to elliminate.

Idbatterim wrote: »

A sizeable number, who government just think "we will give up on them" here, have hundreds of thousands of euro, no questions asked,have a free travel pass, medical card, housing etc...

all those only go to people who qualify for them. said people are assessed and if they qualify they qualify, if they don't, they don't.
it's not that the government are giving up on them, but rather that the government have possibly decided that the likely costs of any alternatives to the current wellfare system don't stack up.

Idbatterim wrote: »

Their usual budget buster grey vote bribe days, are long, long gone though! for many reasons, thats a start at least!

and yet, you would be glad of it should it have been still around whenever you reach the retirement age.

Deebles McBeebles

end of the road wrote: »

absolutely correct.
thankfully there are plenty of people who see it for what it is and will challenge and debunk it.



well, first of all we don't know that everyone within those families actually can't be bothered working. some no doubt are like that and no employer would want them anyway, however others might want to work, but will not have any work requiring doing that they can do. ireland is a small country, so there will only ever be a certain amount of work requiring doing, and no doubt there will be someone doing all of what is required to be done.
secondly, people don't get money for simply lobbing out children, they get money to support children that they have, that money is for the children and not them.

Jesus tap dancing Christ. I can't tell if this is naivety or stupidity. The f*ck like.

Kivaro

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Jesus tap dancing Christ. I can't tell if this is naivety or stupidity. The f*ck like.

And there are politicians who would say the very same thing to you with a straight face.
It is truly bizarro world here in Ireland.

Antares35

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Jesus tap dancing Christ. I can't tell if this is naivety or stupidity. The f*ck like.

Ah shure aren't they all out trying desperately to get jobs but nobody will employ them and the cost of childcare and all those kids they were forced to have blah blah. The rest of us manage to juggle work, mortgage/ rent payments, childcare, only have the number of kids we can actually afford to raise etc. Amazing. It's ok though. I don't mind them raping my salary every month to prop up the layabouts - sure don't we get one free dental clean a year in return. Proper first world privileges

Idbatterim

Antares35 wrote: »

Ah shure aren't they all out trying desperately to get jobs but nobody will employ them and the cost of childcare and all those kids they were forced to have blah blah. The rest of us manage to juggle work, mortgage/ rent payments, childcare, only have the number of kids we can actually afford to raise etc. Amazing. It's ok though. I don't mind them raping my salary every month to prop up the layabouts - sure don't we get one free dental clean a year in return. Proper first world privileges

correct, those getting all the benefits from your taxes, are ones that dont contribute. While you just work and that results in you, qualifying for nothing. Because I am sure you have so much money, you dont know what do with it? like most of us :rolleyes:

riclad

The council only build house,s with 3 bed room,s ,
if someone has more than 2 kids they are effectively putting themselves in for a long wait ,more than 10 years to be offered any house .The council expects each child to have its own bedroom .
The present housing system is designed for familys that maybe have 2-3 children max.
The council will not offer a 3 bed house to someone with 8 children.
If you live in dublin you have to pick 3 area,s to live in ,eg finglas,coolock,dn 15
you,ll only get offered housing that is located in those area,s

Antares35

riclad wrote: »

The council only build house,s with 3 bed room,s ,
if someone has more than 2 kids they are effectively putting themselves in for a long wait ,more than 10 years to be offered any house .The council expects each child to have its own bedroom .
The present housing system is designed for familys that maybe have 2-3 children max.
The council will not offer a 3 bed house to someone with 8 children.
If you live in dublin you have to pick 3 area,s to live in ,eg finglas,coolock,dn 15
you,ll only get offered housing that is located in those area,s

Are they not supposed to share if they are the same gender?