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

Clarence Boddiker

J_1980 wrote: »

I don’t know. There’s a chance they are just economic migrants looking for free stuff, of course.
What I do know with 100% certainty though is that ALL the protesters in the pics in the article in the first post are looking for exactly that. They see THEIR ENTITLED RIGHT to a free gaff under threat. What’s their contribution to society? Does it not matter to you because they’re white?

I suspect the opposite is the case for you, as in you would happily give tens of thousands of homes to non whites..precisely because they're non white, and score highly on the currently fashionable victim charts.
Nobody despises the native working class more than the Bourgeoise class.
And nobody fetishises minorities more than the Bourgeoise class.

I'm not speaking about you, but it takes a particular type of neurotic, self loathing bourgeoise scum to gladly see their own rot on the streets or struggle to find a house for their family, whilst they burst at the seams with sympathy for complete strangers who haven't even set foot in the country yet.

Kivaro

J_1980 wrote: »

I pay more in annual taxes than 95% of the population so feel ....

And you want us to take in 10,000 now from Turkey ....... besides our other ongoing commitments in accepting asylum seekers and economic migrants.
That's an extra one billion euros for those 10K in the first year alone and that is a conservative estimate.
To put it another way, because it is easy to say billion; that is €1,000,000,000 that Irish workers will have to come up with.

Are you an asylum-NGO CEO by any chance?

J_1980

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

I suspect the opposite is the case for you, as in you would happily give tens of thousands of homes to non whites..precisely because they're non white, and score highly on the currently fashionable victim charts.
Nobody despises the native working class more than the Bourgeoise class.
And nobody fetishises minorities more than the Bourgeoise class.

60% of irish council tenants don’t work. The “non-working” Irish class is a more accurate description of these protestors.
And yes, I despise these. Disgusting sponger attitude mixed with racism.

J_1980

Kivaro wrote: »

And you want us to take in 10,000 now from Turkey ....... besides our other ongoing commitments in accepting asylum seekers and economic migrants.
That's an extra one billion euros for those 10K in the first year alone and that is a conservative estimate.
To put it another way, because it is easy to say billion; that is €1,000,000,000 that Irish workers will have to come up with.

Are you an asylum-NGO CEO by any chance?

No I don’t.
But if we can pick the refugees from the camps like Canada does, we’d gain a lot (doctors, nurses, building managers etc) - genuine working people for whom the dole is not a way of life.
Not asking to take anyone coming across the border.

Clarence Boddiker

J_1980 wrote: »

60% of irish council tenants don’t work. The “non-working” Irish class is a more accurate description of these protestors.
And yes, I despise these. Disgusting sponger attitude mixed with racism.

Heres an interview on Ray Darcy with Dr Ebun Joseph who states (as per the CSO) that up to 63% of all adult Africans in Ireland are unemployed.

Do you despise these people? If not then can you explain why not?

https://www.mixcloud.com/rtéradioplayerlatestpodcasts/the-ray-darcy-show-brain-waste-in-ireland-dr-ebun-joseph/

growleaves

J_1980 wrote: »

They will contribute more than your average Irish welfare queen.

Are you Irish? Why are you regurgitating Yankee propaganda cliches with the word "Irish" appended to them?

J_1980

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Heres an interview on Ray Darcy with Dr Ebun Joseph who states (as per the CSO) that up to 63% of all adult Africans in Ireland are unemployed.

Do you despise these people? If not then can you explain why not?

https://www.mixcloud.com/rtéradioplayerlatestpodcasts/the-ray-darcy-show-brain-waste-in-ireland-dr-ebun-joseph/

Using the employment rate to calculate the unemployed. Total nonsense.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1107/1009164-esri_migrants/
“It has found that 16% of Africans living in Ireland are out of work“ bad bit not THAT bad.

If you compare them to irish nationals living in Similarly disadvantaged areas it’s actually not that much a different number. Irish unemployment rate in Ballymun, Darndale and clondalkin will be same.
Why are we focussing on Africans now? I was talking about Syrians...

Boozybooze

iebamm2580 wrote: »

I respectfully decline your suggestion on behalf of Tipperary folks in moving wasters down to Tipperary, im not sure how other rural counties feel though.

Tipperary is a bit too classy of a county to send them to. I was thinking Leitrim.

AulWan

Gatling wrote: »

Spanish sailor's

That's about the level of response I've come to expect here.

When the facts don't suit you, take the piss instead.... and keep perpetuating the myths.

Eric Cartman

AulWan wrote: »

That's about the level of response I've come to expect here.

When the facts don't suit you, take the piss instead.... and keep perpetuating the myths.

no myths here.

1) we have the most lone parents of any european country per capita
2) we have a system badly concocted in such a way that it incentivises unemployed women to have children to secure free / heavily subsidised housing
3) we have a system which financially punishes these women if they admit to having their partner live in this subsidised house. Encouraging either deceit or the partner being removed
4) The majority of lone mothers in this country are not widowed or divorced

The mothers, fathers and system are all to blame for this issue, but theres only one group that benefits from this system really and its lone mothers, they have to be the target of scrutiny and reform.

Gatling

Eric Cartman wrote: »

no myths here.

1) we have the most lone parents of any european country per capita
2) we have a system badly concocted in such a way that it incentivises unemployed women to have children to secure free / heavily subsidised housing
3) we have a system which financially punishes these women if they admit to having their partner live in this subsidised house. Encouraging either deceit or the partner being removed
4) The majority of lone mothers in this country are not widowed or divorced

The mothers, fathers and system are all to blame for this issue, but theres only one group that benefits from this system really and its lone mothers, they have to be the target of scrutiny and reform.

These are the actual facts

AulWan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

.. but theres only one group that benefits from this system really and its lone mothers, they have to be the target of scrutiny and reform.

The target of scrutiny and reform?

Single mothers, are amongst the most vulnerable in this country. Consistently most at risk of poverty, you declare they deserve "scrutiny and reform"

Your misogyny knows no limits, does it. It's disgusting.

Eric Cartman

AulWan wrote: »

The target of scrutiny and reform?

Single mothers, are amongst the most vulnerable in this country. Consistently most at risk of poverty, you declare they deserve "scrutiny and reform"

Your misogyny knows no limits, does it. It's disgusting.

This is about targeting systemic abuses in our society and trying to break down the easy road of 'pop out a few kids and get a gaf then drink yourself to death' that many young women are encouraged into by their welfare life parents or others in their area with no ambition. The fact that this specific subset of women are the issue does not make it 'Your misogyny' or whatever other concept thats been dead in the western world for 40 years you want to throw out.

J_1980

AulWan wrote: »

The target of scrutiny and reform?

Single mothers, are amongst the most vulnerable in this country. Consistently most at risk of poverty, you declare they deserve "scrutiny and reform"

Your misogyny knows no limits, does it. It's disgusting.

Can’t hear that term “vulnerable” anymore....
Poor life choices, fecklessness, and “everything for free attitude” more like.
I actually want another recession like 2008/12, purely to put a final nail into that welfare sponging coffin. Troika didn’t do their job last time around.

growleaves

J_1980 wrote: »

I actually want another recession like 2008/12, purely to put a final nail into that welfare sponging coffin. Troika didn’t do their job last time around.

You're clearly a dangerous nihilist if you genuinely hold this view.

AulWan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is about targeting systemic abuses in our society and trying to break down the easy road of 'pop out a few kids and get a gaf then drink yourself to death' that many young women are encouraged into by their welfare life parents or others in their area with no ambition. The fact that this specific subset of women are the issue does not make it 'Your misogyny' or whatever other concept thats been dead in the western world for 40 years you want to throw out.

"This specific subset of women" What an utterly disgusting, offensive way to describe anyone.

I'm 50+ years old, and I've yet to meet a woman that grew up dreaming of living their life in poverty as a single parent on welfare. Ever.

Your misogyny is alive and well, and you regularly flaunt it here, in every post where you either sneer at or try to make a joke at the expense of single mothers.

ThunbergsAreGo

AulWan wrote: »

"This specific subset of women" What an utterly disgusting, offensive way to describe anyone.

I'm 50+ years old, and I've yet to meet a woman that grew up dreaming of living their life in poverty as a single parent on welfare. Ever.

Your misogyny is alive and well, and you regularly flaunt it here, in every post where you either sneer at or try to make a joke at the expense of single mothers.

Why do you think Ireland has the largest number of single parents in Europe?

holyhead

It's not unheard of girls getting pregnant to get a house. Clearly the girls are wrong but equally so is the system that encourages them to do it. Are men's names required to be on birth certs? If so they should be legally obliged to support the life they help create.

AulWan

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Why do you think Ireland has the largest number of single parents in Europe?

Not for the "free houses" or benefits, thats for sure.

Look at the facts on One Family about single parents and poverty levels, and you might start wondering why anyone would consider "popping" out a baby to live in a hotel for a couple of years and then to look forward to such a luxurious lifestyle on benefits.

Ireland treats single parents like dog dirt beneath their shoe. You only have to read threads like that to see plain evidence of that. The old prejudices, alive and thriving.

I've already posted, and you have yourself, that single parents are not made up of the stereotypical young woman having babies after one night stands or a fling.

Someone can be a single parent and still legally married but not offically seperated, legally seperated, divorced, widowed or unmarried but simply have a failed relationship and single parenthood can happen at any age.

Why we have so many? We have so many because most children are not born into one parent families, but end up living in one for one of the reasons given above.

Gatling

AulWan wrote: »

Not for the "free houses" or benefits, thats for sure.

Look at the facts on One Family about single parents and poverty levels, and you might start wondering why anyone would consider "popping" out a baby to live in a hotel for a couple of years and then to look forward to such a luxurious lifestyle on benefits.

Oh but they do and pay zero contribution to there hotel stays , then get a 3/4 bedroom house for little more than €40 pm .

Poverty ,they have more cash available to themselves than i do and I work two jobs to keep a roof over my family's head and food on the table .I can't afford a car , I've no medical card we've never been away and can't afford designer labels , unlike the lone parents and their boyfriends I know living in both hotels and social housing

Your either very naive or your on a wind up

oceanman

Gatling wrote: »

Oh but they do and pay zero contribution to there hotel stays , then get a 3/4 bedroom house for little more than €40 pm .

Poverty ,they have more cash available to themselves than i do and I work two jobs to keep a roof over my family's head and food on the table .I can't afford a car , I've no medical card we've never been away and can't afford designer labels , unlike the lone parents and their boyfriends I know living in both hotels and social housing

Your either very naive or your on a wind up

if you think its that good why not give it a try yourself?

AulWan

Gatling wrote: »

Oh but they do and pay zero contribution to there hotel stays , then get a 3/4 bedroom house for little more than €40 pm .

Poverty ,they have more cash available to themselves than i do and I work two jobs to keep a roof over my family's head and food on the table .I can't afford a car , I've no medical card we've never been away and can't afford designer labels , unlike the lone parents and their boyfriends I know living in both hotels and social housing

Your either very naive or your on a wind up

First of all, someone who is cohabitating is not a lone parent. Get that through your skull.

Did you even bother to look at any of the stats on lone parents and poverty / deprivation? I bet you didn't. Because it suits you better to believe that lone parents are living it up in hotels, wearing designer clothes and taking foreign holidays, while you sweat to put food on the table.

I am neither naive, or a wind up.

macwal

oceanman wrote: »

if you think its that good why not give it a try yourself?

Obviously, s/he's been brought up with good morals.

macwal

AulWan wrote: »

First of all, someone who is cohabitating is not a lone parent. .....

They'll say they're a lone parent, but will have a partner co-sponging with them, legs spread, dropping out a few more like themselves.

end of the road

suicide_circus wrote: »

but a small few can (and do) cause serious issues in the city centre just as they would out in the commuter belt. and if social housing was moved to the commuter belt the areas would still be a mix of social and non social housing. youre not making a case for social housing to be in the most desirable areas. the only valid argument for this is that the social housing is already there...but that's not a good enough reason to continue the policy.

to be fair, i have already made the case why social housing must be in the cities as well as other areas across a few threads similar to this one over the years.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is about targeting systemic abuses in our society and trying to break down the easy road of 'pop out a few kids and get a gaf then drink yourself to death' that many young women are encouraged into by their welfare life parents or others in their area with no ambition. The fact that this specific subset of women are the issue does not make it 'Your misogyny' or whatever other concept thats been dead in the western world for 40 years you want to throw out.

there are already systems and remedies in place to target abuses of the system, whether they be systemic or otherwise.
the issue is the staffing levels to make things work properly aren't in place.

J_1980 wrote: »

Can’t hear that term “vulnerable” anymore....
Poor life choices, fecklessness, and “everything for free attitude” more like.
I actually want another recession like 2008/12, purely to put a final nail into that welfare sponging coffin. Troika didn’t do their job last time around.

Poor life choices, fecklessness, and “everything for free attitude”will be the case in some cases but not all, probably mos cases reallyt.
apparently troika did their job very well last time, i would suspect though that they probably believed that the current wellfare system may actually be the more cost effective option then alternatives, but that is just a guess.

Gatling wrote: »

Oh but they do and pay zero contribution to there hotel stays , then get a 3/4 bedroom house for little more than €40 pm .

Poverty ,they have more cash available to themselves than i do and I work two jobs to keep a roof over my family's head and food on the table .I can't afford a car , I've no medical card we've never been away and can't afford designer labels , unlike the lone parents and their boyfriends I know living in both hotels and social housing

Your either very naive or your on a wind up

she's neither, she's simply giving the facts.
designer labels and foreign holidays are over rated, you aren't missing much if i'm honest, trust me on that one.
as already explained, council rent is assessed and based on income, so if someone is paying 40 euro a week, it is because it has been determined that such an amount is all that can be paid. you would be best taking it up with the councils if you dislike that, we here on boards can't do anything about it.

riclad

I Knew a single mother , she had a small car 10 years old ,
one child.She worked in a restaurant 2-3 days a week.
the reason she was able to go on holidays was her boyfriend was a taxi driver.She lived in a council 2 bed room flat.
She needed the car to go to work, visit her mother , and bring her child to school .
She was not living in the lap of luxury.
She has no chance of getting a house as she only has 1 child .
I do,nt think she is classified as a lone parent now as her child is now 18.
I do not know if she still gets any payments from social welfare.
i Have not seen her since 2016.

AulWan

macwal wrote: »

They'll say they're a lone parent, but will have a partner co-sponging with them, legs spread, dropping out a few more like themselves.

Thanks for proving my point about the old prejudices being alive and well.

You can tell a lot about a poster by the posts they thank, too,

They'll claim "its the system's fault" or "we condemn the fathers too" but then they'll thank a disgusting post like this one.

Right, there's no misogyny here.

Gatling

AulWan wrote: »

someone who is cohabitating is not a lone parent.

Did you even bother to look at any of the stats on lone parents and poverty / deprivation? I bet you didn't. Because it suits you better to believe that lone parents are living it up in hotels, wearing designer clothes and taking foreign holidays, while you sweat to put food on the table.

I am neither naive, or a wind up.

Point A - exactly doesn't stop them though.

Point B- everything I said is true and yes I and many ,many others sweat our balls off to keep others in council housing ,hotels ,designer gear ,cars and holidays due to their lifestyle choices and their childhood goal of getting a 4eva home off the council like their mother's did and their mothers before them.

AulWan

Gatling wrote: »

Point A - exactly doesn't stop them though.

Point B- everything I said is true and yes I and many ,many others sweat our balls off to keep others in council housing ,hotels ,designer gear ,cars and holidays due to their lifestyle choices and their childhood goal of getting a 4eva home off the council like their mother's did and their mothers before them.

Blah, blah, blah.

I actually feel sorry for people like you, so blinded and embittered by your own prejudices and unwilling to give them up.

(edit, no, that's not true. I don't feel sorry for you actually. More like pity.)

Caquas

neonsofa wrote: »

Yep HomeForLife buy the property and lease it to them. After five years they can buy it again.

I looked it up when i heard about it because i genuinely thought the person telling me about it was mistaken.
It sounded so ludicrous that someone could fall into arrears on a mortgage, have this company buy the property and rent it back to them at a reduced rate- with this HomeForLife crowd responsible for maintenance and renovations etc- and then buy it back from them at a lower cost after 5 years. Thought i was missing something but apparently not!

That’s true but you would never know if you relied to the media who give plenty of coverage to mortgage-to-rent schemes but never mention this game changer.

Nor do they explain that the rent people pay will bear no relation to the value of the property. People will pay rents according to local authority rules I.e. income-related and a fraction of the market rent. And not related to the amount of money they borrowed in the first instance.

This is the best of all possible worlds for the defaulting borrower who now gets to keep the house but with the local authority responsible for all upkeep until the day the borrower decides to trigger the option to buy at the discounted price paid by HomeforLife to the bank.

Now who feels stupid! :rolleyes: