Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Padraig Mor · 01-10-2018 05:25PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its not free. The tenant pays the council rent.

Not quite correct. The tenants are asked to pay rent, but there are practically zero consequences for not doing so - it is in effect an optional payment. Over half of council houses in Dublin are in rent arrears!

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 05:30PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Regarding how government money is spend there is always room for improvement in various departments.
However people should also take a bit of personal responsibility for themselves and not blame the government for their circumstances.
Regarding people being on the social housing list I don't think they should be assessed for how they'd contribute to society in way but as I said it just needs to be regulated more.
I really want our society to progress and for kids to have loads of opportunity,etc However I'd be concerned about certain elements of the welfare system looking attractive to people as a way yo get on in life.

Word for word I absolutely agree with you, I would also add that the issues we’re in agreement on aren’t going to be tacked at an individual level by going after each individual individually, it’s just not a very effective strategy, and I personally prefer to support individuals than spend all my time finding ways to tear them down. It’s just not something I do, and I’ve dealt with individuals whose attitudes are ten times worse than Ms. Cash. Their employment status or the number of children they had has never been a consideration as to whether or not they are deserving of support.

Gatling · 01-10-2018 05:41PM

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Not quite correct. The tenants are asked to pay rent, but there are practically zero consequences for not doing so - it is in effect an optional payment. Over half of council houses in Dublin are in rent arrears!

50 million plus ,but odd councillors came out and Claimed the people on welfare and the lowest incomes suffered the most in the downturn ,
I wonder if SF councillors who control the local authorities are supporting the no evictions policies people want brought in , which means they are happy to sit and watch thousands of tenants refuse to pay rents knowing they can never be evicted

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 05:44PM

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Not quite correct. The tenants are asked to pay rent, but there are practically zero consequences for not doing so - it is in effect an optional payment. Over half of council houses in Dublin are in rent arrears!

If they’re in arrears, then their accommodation isn’t free, they’re just not paying their rent, which is an issue which should be addressed by the local council or whoever is acting as their landlord. Tenants simply shouldn’t be allowed to rack up those sorts of arrears without penalties being imposed, but that’s a failure to implement policy, it’s still not going anywhere near suggesting that anyone who has signed a tenant agreement is being accommodated for free.

Gatling · 01-10-2018 05:49PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they’re in arrears, then their accommodation isn’t free, they’re just not paying their rent,

it’s still not going anywhere near suggesting that anyone who has signed a tenant agreement is being accommodated for free.

They aren't paying rent so they are staying in housing free of charge .
While others who would be more than happy to pay a very subsidised rent are left languishing.

You can try twist or bend it eloquently any way you like .
That's a free house

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 06:06PM

Gatling wrote: »

They aren't paying rent so they are staying in housing free of charge .
While others who would be more than happy to pay a very subsidised rent are left languishing.

You can try twist or bend it eloquently any way you like .
That's a free house

Yeah look, I’m not the person twisting words here, I’m stating what are facts. You’re stating how you perceive the situation which isn’t at all based on fact but on your perception, and you only have someone’s word that they would agree to pay a subsidised rent if they are languishing now. You don’t know that once they sign a tenancy agreement they too wouldn’t do the very same thing as the previously evicted tenants because they aren’t currently in that situation for you to be able to make that determination.

ShaneC93 · 01-10-2018 06:15PM

stuff.hunter wrote: »

youre so wrong... theres not a chance for couple with their combined income less than 70-80kpa to get any mortgage, even with 20pc of downpayment ready

I linked to the page that works out the maths for that specific scheme and it's limited to couples with a joint income of <€75K or an individual with an income of <€50K gross p/a. With €200M dedicated to the scheme this year, that's ~1000 couples/individuals that can benefit from it. Here's the Citizen's Info page:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/help_with_buying_a_home/local_authority_mortgages.html

I'm all for critising the government and the housing minister of all they've got wrong and the huge amount of things they continue to poorly act on but this seems like a great scheme with adequate funding, that serves to benefit low-income earners in allowing them to still buy a property. One of the few good ideas actually implemented during this housing crisis.

Gatling · 01-10-2018 06:16PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah look, I’m not the person twisting words here, I’m stating what are facts.

If you are not paying rent on a social house or private rental when your are legally contracted to pay rent ,
You are then fact living in a house free of charge ,
Not opinion but fact .

Just like the thousands living in hotels free of charge , zero financial contributions to utilities or your room/s and yet thousands are turning down social housing.

Crisis yes but it's a crisis of lack of any responsibility for ones lifestyle choices

ShaneC93 · 01-10-2018 06:24PM

"My kids come first" *But I'd prefer they slept on benches in a Garda station than to spend the money I've earmarked for a TV, Beer/Vodka, Wedding dress etc. this week on accomodation..

ShaneC93 · 01-10-2018 06:29PM

The TV career might still be option for her yet.

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 06:40PM

Gatling wrote: »

If you are not paying rent on a social house or private rental when your are legally contracted to pay rent ,
You are then fact living in a house free of charge ,
Not opinion but fact .

You even say it yourself that they are legally contracted to pay rent. If they aren’t paying rent, they’re still not living in the house for free. They’re just not paying rent that they should be paying.

Just like the thousands living in hotels free of charge , zero financial contributions to utilities or your room/s and yet thousands are turning down social housing.

They’re not at all like the thousands living in hotels free of charge either.

Crisis yes but it's a crisis of lack of any responsibility for ones lifestyle choices

That’s not a crisis, people with piss poor attitudes towards other people aren’t any great threat to society, and certainly we’re nowhere near being over-run with misanthropes any time soon.

Gatling · 01-10-2018 06:57PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You even say it yourself that they are legally contracted to pay rent.

If they aren’t paying rent, they’re still not living in the house for free.

They’re just not paying rent that they should be paying.

They’re not at all like the thousands living in hotels free of charge either.

I broke up your post

(a)If they aren’t paying rent, they’re still not living in the house for free.

They’re just not paying rent that they should be paying.

Yes they are they are living in a house for nothing

(b) They’re not at all like the thousands living in hotels free of charge either

Yes they are living in hotels free from any financial contribution.

If you get placed in a "Hub" you pay a small contribution .
If you're living in a hotel you pay zero this is all fact

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 07:10PM

Gatling wrote: »

I broke up your post

(a)If they aren’t paying rent, they’re still not living in the house for free.

They’re just not paying rent that they should be paying.

Yes they are they are living in a house for nothing

(b) They’re not at all like the thousands living in hotels free of charge either

Yes they are living in hotels free from any financial contribution.

If you get placed in a "Hub" you pay a small contribution .
If you're living in a hotel you pay zero this is all fact

They’re still not living in the house for free, they should be paying rent, and if they’re not, they are in arrears with the rent. They are still obliged to pay these arrears so implying that the time during which they are living there and not paying rent that they are living there for free is simply false.

I didn’t question your assertions about what anyone is or isn’t paying for in hotels or hubs, it was your assertion that people living in houses for free are the same as those people living in hotels for free was false, because the first underlying implication on which you base your comparison is false.

Gatling · 01-10-2018 07:17PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re still not living in the house for free,

, it was your assertion that people living in houses for free are the same as those people living in hotels for free was false, because the first underlying implication on which you base your comparison is false.

Lol keep trying to avoid it ,I'm not going away

If you don't pay rent your are fact living in a house for free ,
Those living in hotels under the guise of homelessness are not paying any financial contributions towards their stays so fact they are living there for free ,
No assumption no fake news ,

But fact .

So yeah enough of the side steps and word gsmes

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 07:26PM

Gatling wrote: »

Lol keep trying to avoid it ,I'm not going away

If you don't pay rent your are fact living in a house for free ,
Those living in hotels under the guise of homelessness are not paying any financial contributions towards their stays so fact they are living there for free ,
No assumption no fake news ,

But fact .

So yeah enough of the side steps and word gsmes

I’m not avoiding anything. You started off with people in houses before moving on to people in hotels. I’m still talking about people in houses, you’re still trying to talk about people in hotels now when it was pointed out to you that people in houses are not, in spite of your continued claims to the contrary, living there for free. If you want to come back to addressing people in houses and sort that particular conundrum out first, then we could move on to discussing people in hotels. If you’re just to repeat the same thing over and over, you could do that too, it still won’t get you any further than you aren’t already.

NasserShammaz · 01-10-2018 07:39PM

ShaneC93 wrote: »

The TV career might still be option for her yet.

I take it that its not about animal husbandry then

All Seeing Eye · 01-10-2018 07:44PM

NasserShammaz wrote: »

I take it that its not about animal husbandry then

It doesn’t help that English tv has created a few different tv series about the traveller lifestyle. Never any mention of all the crime and anti social behaviour they engage in on any of these programmes.

Gatling · 01-10-2018 07:52PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not avoiding anything. You started off with people in houses ,

still talking about people in houses, it was pointed out to you that people in houses are not, in spite of your continued claims to the contrary, living there for free.

It they are not paying rent then yes they are living there for free .

Let's ask the rest of the posters

If you are living in a house and not paying rent

A - are you living there free

B- or not

Fr_Dougal · 01-10-2018 07:53PM

ShaneC93 wrote: »

The TV career might still be option for her yet.

Wasn’t she on Crimeline before shur.

NasserShammaz · 01-10-2018 07:56PM

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

It doesn’t help that English tv has created a few different tv series about the traveller lifestyle. Never any mention of all the crime and anti social behaviour they engage in on any of these programmes.

"my big fat Gypsy feud" "my big fat gypsy car boot stolen goods sale"

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 08:28PM

Gatling wrote: »

It they are not paying rent then yes they are living there for free .

Let's ask the rest of the posters

If you are living in a house and not paying rent

A - are you living there free

B- or not

I didn’t agree to ask anyone else for their opinion. I’m quite well aware of the facts, as I’m fairly certain you are too, but you choose to present a particular narrative as though it were fact, then hope that narrative is supported by popular demand instead of having to accept that it’s simply not a fact?

If every poster on Boards were to agree with you, even if every tenant who simply chose not to pay their rent imagined they weren’t breaching the terms of their tenancy agreement and could live in the house indefinitely without paying anything off the arrears or bringing their rent up to date, their agreement with your opinion STILL wouldn’t mean they were permitted to live in the house for free during the time they chose to breach the terms of their tenancy agreement.

Gatling · 01-10-2018 09:10PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t agree to ask anyone else for their opinion. I’m quite well aware of the facts, as I’m fairly certain you are too, but you choose to present a particular narrative as though it were fact,

I asked for other peoples opinions ,
So yeah .

Living in a house and not paying rent means your living there for free fact .

Twist ,turn , squirm anyway you want your wrong .

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 09:39PM

Gatling wrote: »

I asked for other peoples opinions ,
So yeah .

Living in a house and not paying rent means your living there for free fact .

Twist ,turn , squirm anyway you want your wrong .

I’m not twisting, turning nor squirming at all. I still maintain my position which is based upon fact, as opposed to your position which you appeared to be hoping wasn’t just your opinion, but was shared by anyone else besides yourself, which STILL would have no bearing on the fact that a tenant who breaches their tenancy agreement through non-payment of rent, not only are they not living in the property for free, but they are liable for outstanding arrears and they will continue to be in breach of their tenancy agreement until they pay any outstanding rent and arrears that are due.

Genuinely, I have to ask you - am I missing some sort of ‘gotcha’ that you imagine applies that I haven’t specifically addressed or that you imagine I’m overlooking? Because it would be fairly silly for you to come out with it now after all this back and forth when you could have produced it in your first reply to mine rather than all this ducking, dodging and diving on a hiding to nothing only giving me a headache having to counter your perpetuation of a mythical narrative.

AlekSmart · 01-10-2018 09:59PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they’re in arrears, then their accommodation isn’t free, they’re just not paying their rent, which is an issue which should be addressed by the local council or whoever is acting as their landlord. Tenants simply shouldn’t be allowed to rack up those sorts of arrears without penalties being imposed, but that’s a failure to implement policy, it’s still not going anywhere near suggesting that anyone who has signed a tenant agreement is being accommodated for free.

That is an interesting concept for sure.

One can speculate what the response to a Local Authority imposing penalties upon persons in substantial Rent Arrears.
What type of "penalties" could realistically be imposed upon a tenant who claims they do not have the wherewithal to pay the rent any longer ?

Logically,as a responsible Landlord,any Local Authority would be well advised to seek to repossess the relevant property from a non-payer,indeed they would have a legal duty to their rent-paying tenants to do so.

Fast Forward to the day when the Local Authority seeks to enforce any repossession or eviction order in modern day Ireland,and one can easily see major shennanigans being set in place against the evils of Landlordism etc....

But yes,you could well have stumbled upon a new tenet of economics particular to our Republic....

"If they're in arrears,then their accomodation is'nt Free,they're just not paying the rent"

This could,perhaps,become a sticky ?

AlekSmart · 01-10-2018 10:06PM

NasserShammaz wrote: »

I take it that its not about animal husbandry then

It does give an insight perhaps,into the current media preoccupation with the trials & tribulations of this family.

My personal belief is that there is a coterie of individuals prompting,guiding and scene-setting for Ms Cash from the very outset of this scenario.

It will be interesting to note the identities of any others whom the Ch4 team manage to get in front of their cameras.

One eyed Jack · 01-10-2018 10:47PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

Fast Forward to the day when the Local Authority seeks to enforce any repossession or eviction order in modern day Ireland,and one can easily see major shennanigans being set in place against the evils of Landlordism etc....

Oh for sure, and I was really giving Gatling the benefit of the doubt that they weren’t engaging in some sort of Freeman nonsense, I expect better of them than that, frankly. Realistically though, the local authority can seek a repossession order in the District Court to have the tenant removed from the property, but it’s a fairly drawn out process of last resort really.

But yes,you could well have stumbled upon a new tenet of economics particular to our Republic....

This could,perhaps,become a sticky ?

I would hope so, rather than have anyone reading this under the impression that they could simply breach the terms of their tenancy agreement by not paying their rent when it’s due and imagine they could continue to reside in the property without paying any rent. I’m going to stop arguing about whether or not they can live in the property for free now because it’s just stupid and irresponsible to leave anyone under the impression that they could do such a thing and hope to argue that they read on Boards that they could live in the property for free and because someone said it’s a fact on the internet it must be true. I couldn’t see that argument flying in any appeals process.

Gatling · 01-10-2018 10:55PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh for sure, and I was really giving Gatling the benefit of the doubt that they weren’t engaging in some sort of Freeman nonsense,

I would hope so, rather than have anyone reading this under the impression that they could simply breach the terms of their tenancy agreement by not paying their rent when it’s due and imagine they could continue to reside in the property without paying any rent. I’m going to stop arguing about whether or not they can live in the property for free

Lol seriously the most condsending nonsense I've come across on boards in a long time .

Freemanisnm is the best you have.

Gen.Zhukov · 01-10-2018 11:01PM

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

It doesn’t help that English tv has created a few different tv series about the traveller lifestyle. Never any mention of all the crime and anti social behaviour they engage in on any of these programmes.

Not entirely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDb27PiYYWo

A great bunch of lads.

Gatling · 01-10-2018 11:03PM

Imagine a benefits steet done here except with a big brother twist

freshpopcorn · 02-10-2018 12:23AM

The channel four program will be interesting to see what elements of this they focus on.
I remember in the Big Fat Gypsy wedding programs sometimes they used ask about paying for the day/dresses and the answer that was always given. You never ask a traveller about money.
So, they might ask some questions that people want to know the answers to here but they may not get an answer.

Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Comments