riffmongous wrote: » You said enter
Jensen White Robot wrote: » Also, why is it ok to break into someone else's private property that they worked hard for?
mikhail wrote: » It seems pretty clear what the poster meant. Shall we continue with the pedantry, or can we accept that their initial post was imprecisely written?
_Brian wrote: » You see, any other business person and nobody cares that the business pays off the assets and they make a healthy profit. People can protest all they want and scorn at landlords wanting to make a profit, but when less and less landlords are attracted to the rental business it means a less and less functioning rental sector which drives the remaining rents up. I know where I live there were always houses available but as the profits became less and less houses that had been rented for decades were sold off into private ownership, plus the population has increased. Now when a house comes available there’s a scramble as there is no supply. If it were sufficiently profitable there would be more properties available and with more units rents would settle to a more sustainable level.
TheBoyConor wrote: » It's all overblow imo. Thank you for your opinion but do try not to confuse your 'opinion' with facts. There are large amounts of people "homeless" but are living in their parents or siblings homes or in some cases with a friend and are probably paying something towards it. Yet they are registered as homeless in an attempt to get another notch up the housing list. They are not, that's the point that has been made ad nausea about the homeless figures, they are understated not overstated as you seem to imply. Then you have the long term street homeless, ie they are genuinely homeless but their not having a roof over their heads is not their primary problem. Their homlessness is a consequence of a whole host of things like drug addictions, alcoholism, mental health issues, etc etc. The issues are clearly connected but the non housing problems they face is not an excuse to leave them on the street! You could put them in a brand new semi D in a leafy suburb but they'd probably be sleeping in a doorway again within a few weeks because they don't want to be there because for any number of reasons, eg they fear their drug dealer to whom they owe money will come for them there, the house gets overrun with other junkies or whinos they have to get away from or they flood/burn down the house while whacked out of their heads. What charming, humane language. You do know that not every one who is homeless is a 'junkie' and they don't all own money to drug dealers. In reality the number of genuinely homeless but hard working decent honest people is actually quite modest by comparison. They are a minority of the total homeless number. Do enlighten us with figures? And that is because for most hard working ambitious people, if they cannot get a home they simply move away to where there are better opportunities whether that is to to another city, county or country and they are adult enough to fend for and look after themselves. You're big on generalities aren't you - I suppose it's easy to hide behind them. Take a trip to London sometime and talk to the Irish homeless on the streets there or take a trip to Dublin and talk to some of the Polish lads who've ended up homeless.....the ambition of these sets of people clearly didn't save them from homeless as you seem to imply it would. These "occupations" are just the usual mixture of social justice warriors like Fr McVerry & Fergus Finlay, champagne socialists like Claire Daly and Rich Boy Barrett and plain old crusties who will get on any band wagon going as long as there is a "stick it to the man" element to it And finally the mask slips fully....more generalisations again...p.s. it's Clare Daly no 'i', accuracy not your strong point either
It's all overblow imo.
There are large amounts of people "homeless" but are living in their parents or siblings homes or in some cases with a friend and are probably paying something towards it. Yet they are registered as homeless in an attempt to get another notch up the housing list.
Then you have the long term street homeless, ie they are genuinely homeless but their not having a roof over their heads is not their primary problem. Their homlessness is a consequence of a whole host of things like drug addictions, alcoholism, mental health issues, etc etc.
You could put them in a brand new semi D in a leafy suburb but they'd probably be sleeping in a doorway again within a few weeks because they don't want to be there because for any number of reasons, eg they fear their drug dealer to whom they owe money will come for them there, the house gets overrun with other junkies or whinos they have to get away from or they flood/burn down the house while whacked out of their heads.
In reality the number of genuinely homeless but hard working decent honest people is actually quite modest by comparison. They are a minority of the total homeless number.
And that is because for most hard working ambitious people, if they cannot get a home they simply move away to where there are better opportunities whether that is to to another city, county or country and they are adult enough to fend for and look after themselves.
These "occupations" are just the usual mixture of social justice warriors like Fr McVerry & Fergus Finlay, champagne socialists like Claire Daly and Rich Boy Barrett and plain old crusties who will get on any band wagon going as long as there is a "stick it to the man" element to it
Discodog wrote: » The reason there's a housing crisis is because the majority have a home & don't give a damn for those who don't. The same applies to health care. It must be desperately upsetting for those that care, like McVerry, seeing the problem getting worse not better.
Jensen White Robot wrote: » I actually don't. I've huge respect for him - he gave up a comfortable life and actually DID something for people rather than bitch about other people not doing something. He sacrificed so much for decades, and for the genuinely needy. Horrific stories of people being neglected as children and ending up on the streets. But I agree this is disappointing crap by him.
BPKS wrote: » McVerry's employers (the people who paid his salary, gave him free board and transport for decades) have thousands more unoccupied properties around the country than any of these landlords.
BPKS wrote: » The majority of that majority burst their asses getting educated and employment in order to afford a mortgage and also afford to pay into the social welfare fund for those who didnt bother bursting their asses getting educated or employed.
Graces7 wrote: » Sacrificed what ? did what?
Hitman3000 wrote: » love the free house bs that is thrown out here by the usual crowd of.....
Wheeliebin30 wrote: » I heard him this morning saying they need to occcupy 50 or a 100 houses because the gards can’t evict all of them at the same time. Sick of him and his sniggering attitude to anyone who disagrees with him. Makes people who own a property feel guilty for not handing it to some homeless person. Not to mention his ceo on a 100k a year. To be homest I find him a bit of a well I can’t say it here.. Maybe his beloved Catholic Church might take some of the 200 billion they own and house the homeless.
kneemos wrote: » Anybody on any kind of assisted accommodation counts as homeless I think,even if they have a flat or a house.
Deleted User wrote: » I think it’s my lack of education coming out! I was too busy working for my living!
Jensen White Robot wrote: » Wow, you really do enjoy pretending not to understand stuff for the craic. Look him up i suppose?
Loves_lorries wrote: » Used to admire the man but he comes across as a right demagogue this last few years, he also receives nothing but softball interviews which tells you all you need to know about the politics of rte and the Irish media. Much prefer brother who runs the capuchin Centre, best charity out there, no revolutionary political baggage.
he also receives nothing but softball interviews
which tells you all you need to know about the politics of rte and the Irish media.
riffmongous wrote: » What is a healthy profit though? And associated risk? Thats the question and if people have an overexpectation of what they are going to make that's not going to work out well for anyone
MFPM wrote: » Is that simple is it - the lazy versus the non lazy? Do you apply such binary analysis to everything in life?
n!ghtmancometh wrote: » People have some nerve criticising Peter McVerry. He does more work to help vulnerable people in one day than any of the whingers here will do in their lifetime. He sees the reality of the housing problem and the hugely negative impact it's having currently, and the damage it is causing young children now which will have severe repercussions in the future, day in and day out. Unbelievably selfish attitude most of ye have. Not surprising though.
TheCitizen wrote: » The notion that landlords can make profits is ludicrous, they're just greedy for more. Rent is astronomical in Irish cities, it's scandalously extortionate and yet we have right wing mopes moaning about student protests.
mikhail wrote: » I'm in broad agreement with their aims, but not their tactics. People like you, who associate left wing politics with half assed sit-in protests and disrespect for the rule of law, are why the left can't win a double digit percentage of Dail seats.
_Brian wrote: » But it’s nobody’s business what the profit is of tue market is functioning, but it’s not functioning and so fewer units to rent drives rents up. The rental market must serve both landlords and tenants, trying to stack it so it only serves tenants turns landlords away, this has lost much of the rental stock and prevents landlords investing in more property.
Graces7 wrote: » I know his career and my words stand. He has given up nothing. sacrificed nothing.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Smug gob****e. He's lost every last ounce of credibility now. Encouraging scumbag lawbreakers, how Christian of him.
Loves_lorries wrote: » High Market rent becomes less seductive when you realise nowhere in Europe does it take longer to evict a rogue tenant and nowhere is there less sanction for tenants who go rogue. Some might say landlords price high so as to cushion against likely future non payers.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)
