nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

is Darndale that bad??

joe stodge

just watched a Dutch documentary about Dublin, the interviewer asked some lad in Dublin to describe how bad darndale is. The lad says “There’s little villages in eithopia that do fund raisers for darndale.”

https://www.npo3.nl/danny-in-de.../03-10-2018/VPWON_1284298

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Hurrache wrote: »

I guess a lot of the new stuff is as result of infill housing. Years ago councils throughout Dublin thought it would be a good idea to combat anti social activity by building houses on any bit of green space they could, often leading to worse conditions that were there previously. Lets move lots more families in, but we'll remove any bit of green space first where the kids can play.

I'd be very interested to hear how any conditions worsened due to that act by the CoCo (to build on green areas with infill housing).

In areas like these, the green areas are not used by kids to play on. The green areas are nuisance areas that are abused by scummers on motorbikes, horses, cars, etc. and a spot for a bonfire or two of an evening.

The theory is that you remove the green area and you remove the problem people that abuse it (scummers will still be scummers, but they'll be scummers elsewhere).

As a local Councillor has commented to me before; you won't get rid of the scumbags completely, but you certainly can make it difficult and uncomfortable for them.

Hotblack Desiato

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It was an award winning design.

Shows you how away with the fairies architects are.

wexie

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm not even sure tougher consequences are needed, I think really all that would need to happen is for the gardai to make a nuisance of themselves. Go after every little infringement, no matter how small.
I do believe that the severity of the punishment is nowhere near as much a deterrent as the probability of getting caught and punished in the first place.

I seem to recall the New York had astounding success with an approach just like that. Go after the little things, and make sure to go after EVERY little thing.

While I don't disagree I think it if were proposed the first things we'd hear would be 'the gardai and judiciary' don't have the bandwidth. Which, in fairness they probably don't.

I don't think that's a problem that can't be solved though, it's political will that's lacking to solve it.

[Deleted User]

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It was an award winning design. They changed it because the Gardai could enter it due to the various courtyards. That is one of the reasons it is so odd now.
Anybody saying there was a lack of facilities is wrong because we used to go up to the community centres near there as there were none in the private estates close by. The destroyed everything and anything added.

That a very good point, often public housing was seen as a chance to try experimental design/architectural vanity projects and thy almost never work but it also tells you how the potential residents were viewed as a group to try an experiment on. Tried and tested traditional housing designs remain popular for a reason.

Shenshen

wexie wrote: »

And, as I see it that's the main problem we're facing here.

If you come from a family where your parents don't work, maybe never have worked, and there are no consequences of convictions other than (perhaps) a prison sentence and a conviction, but no impact on welfare payments then what is there to stop them from reoffending?

Having a list of convictions as long as your arm is only a problem for people who want to work and are ashamed of these convictions. Seems that for some it's little more than bragging rights. :mad:

I'm not even sure tougher consequences are needed, I think really all that would need to happen is for the gardai to make a nuisance of themselves. Go after every little infringement, no matter how small.
I do believe that the severity of the punishment is nowhere near as much a deterrent as the probability of getting caught and punished in the first place.

I seem to recall the New York had astounding success with an approach just like that. Go after the little things, and make sure to go after EVERY little thing.

uncommon_name

I was driving through Darndale about 5 years ago when a group of lads set a car on fire with people sitting in side it. They covered the car in I assume petrol and set it on fire.
Never went near the place again and will do my best not to.

Wheeliebin30

corner of hells wrote: »

From a homeless hub into what ?
Private rented ? Local authority ? Supported housing ?

Local authority new build.

Ray Palmer

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Never been, but looking at it on Google street view, the architect must have been a chimpanzee with downs.
The buildings are so oddly laid out.

Just nuke it and start again, next time with high-rise towers..... to give them something to whinge about.

It was an award winning design. They changed it because the Gardai couldn't enter it due to the various courtyards. That is one of the reasons it is so odd now.
Anybody saying there was a lack of facilities is wrong because we used to go up to the community centres near there as there were none in the private estates close by. The destroyed everything and anything added.

[Deleted User]

wexie wrote: »

I don't know if that's the case to be honest. Both insofar of the approach they seem to be using in Holland (they've still kept some of the 'scum houses') and both insofar that I believe most humans are capable of behaving like somewhat decent human beings given a bit of guidance.

Having said that, I just posted in another thread that I would have no problems with people with a gazillion convictions taken out of society permanently.

I'm all for trying to help people but there has to come a point where we as society are allowed to say 'look this isn't working out, it's not us, it's you'.

There are too much politic and ideology in homelessness in Irish society, the nature of our political system is that landing a punch gets publicity, so whoever is in opposition has to land a blow so the 'homeless' is a handy one anyone notice how subtly SF, for example, has changed the message from homeless to affordable housing as their focal point while also mentioning the homeless.

Then there is the ideology of homelessness, I listened to a radio interview the person appeared to be a lecturer in social policy/social work and it was like it was scripted be on message all the time and those people are influencing public policy.

Shenshen

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Darndale is one of the worst areas in the country. Shows how successful social housing can be. That is why the government should not build social housing estates. All the worst areas are social housing areas created by the government.

So, assuming the government didn't build social housing - do you honestly think that this would mean that there would be no such problem areas any more?
Out of curiosity, where do you think the people who are causing the problems in Darndale would live now, and why living in that other place would mean they wouldn't cause problems any more?

Hurrache

KyussB wrote: »

Didn't know what the surrender grant was, and found this excellent report giving great background (writen in the late 80's), on how some of the most deprived areas in Dublin, came to be even worse:
https://www.threshold.ie/download/pdf/policy_consequences.pdf

Very interesting. Even back then, when many of the estates were new, and I would have thought had relatively little antisocial issues, people who even found moving was more expensive than they anticpated were just happy to be away from their old address.

wexie

LirW wrote: »

As long as there aren't consequences it's a neverending cycle.

And, as I see it that's the main problem we're facing here.

If you come from a family where your parents don't work, maybe never have worked, and there are no consequences of convictions other than (perhaps) a prison sentence and a conviction, but no impact on welfare payments then what is there to stop them from reoffending?

Having a list of convictions as long as your arm is only a problem for people who want to work and are ashamed of these convictions. Seems that for some it's little more than bragging rights. :mad:

LirW

I grew up in another country in some seriously bad areas. But I never remember people being so feral like it is in ghetto-ized areas here.
Huge difference probably is that here people don't have to fear any consequences for their unacceptable behaviour.
There are troublemakers anywhere but they wouldn't be as bothersome. Police is glued to bad areasand they do enforce the law. You don't wanna get in trouble with them constantly or you'd be serving time and convictions impact your welfare payments indirectly.
If you're troublesome, the council won't extend your lease and they'll leave you to fend for yourself and if you have kids, off they go to care.
If you don't keep a low profile and keep to yourself, there are consequences and everybody knows that this is something you don't want.
If your kids are not going to school you'll be fined hundreds of euros.
For people it's just not worth it to keep on being troublesome and making the life of others hell.

I think that's one of the very few upsides of living in a law-and order state.

As long as there aren't consequences it's a neverending cycle.

wexie

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The only issue with policies like this is that they often exclude the possibility that it simply won't work on some people. Some people simply won't play the game. Our juvenile justice system has the same issue.

I don't know if that's the case to be honest. Both insofar of the approach they seem to be using in Holland (they've still kept some of the 'scum houses') and both insofar that I believe most humans are capable of behaving like somewhat decent human beings given a bit of guidance.

Having said that, I just posted in another thread that I would have no problems with people with a gazillion convictions taken out of society permanently.

I'm all for trying to help people but there has to come a point where we as society are allowed to say 'look this isn't working out, it's not us, it's you'.

Captain Obvious

wexie wrote: »

Probably not if left to their own devices.

The approach they are taking in Holland is that these people are capable of behaving like somewhat normal people, or at least capable of living within the laws and without making life miserable for those around them. So I guess it's a mixture of consequences for actions and help with making changes.

They don't have to end up being model taxpaying citizens, they just need to stop being feral scum. It's not overly complicated. It just needs to realization (and commitment) that it can change it that in the long term it's probably easier and cheaper to deal with it in a constructive way rather than deal with problem families and potentially generations of them.

Yes it's a cycle, but I think a lot of the approach taken here makes it a self repeating cycle and I don't think it needs to be.

The only issue with policies like this is that they often exclude the possibility that it simply won't work on some people. Some people simply won't play the game. Our juvenile justice system has the same issue.

inforfun

Plus, Eberhard van der Laan, Amsterdam's mayor, passed away, there have been elections in that City so there is now some (extreme) left wing freak show in charge\on show there.

That city is lost.

wexie

mariaalice wrote: »

But surely if a family or an individual can't maintain a tenancy and are evicted they will end up back in homelessness, so for some its a cycle of behavior. If a family or individual needs wrap around care how long is for is it for life? will they ever stop antisocial behavior and living chaotic lives.

Probably not if left to their own devices.

The approach they are taking in Holland is that these people are capable of behaving like somewhat normal people, or at least capable of living within the laws and without making life miserable for those around them. So I guess it's a mixture of consequences for actions and help with making changes.

They don't have to end up being model taxpaying citizens, they just need to stop being feral scum. It's not overly complicated. It just needs to realization (and commitment) that it can change it that in the long term it's probably easier and cheaper to deal with it in a constructive way rather than deal with problem families and potentially generations of them.

Yes it's a cycle, but I think a lot of the approach taken here makes it a self repeating cycle and I don't think it needs to be.

[Deleted User]

But surely if a family or an individual can't maintain a tenancy and are evicted they will end up back in homelessness, so for some its a cycle of behavior. If a family or individual needs wrap around care how long is for is it for life? will they ever stop antisocial behavior and living chaotic lives.

wexie

mariaalice wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/amsterdam-scum-town-to-house-antisocial-neighbours-28943064.html

Did they ever go ahead with this plan?

Yes but I believe it was only ever used once, the container houses are still there in case they are needed (fewer now than they had) but in general the approach seems to be to just address the antisocial behaviour. They use an integrated approach with the police, social workers and housing associations (and whatever else needs to be involved such as child protection), Important to note that it appears there also can be consequences for social welfare payments in cases of antisocial behaviour.

Current article :

https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/containerwoningen-voor-treiteraars-blijken-niet-nodig~a4582666/

Article about the one family that was actually housed in one of these :

https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/03/08/wij-zijn-in-deze-gevangenis-gestopt-1352473-a758255

(both in Dutch).

Overall the approach seems to be focused on addressing and changing the antisocial behaviour rather than just dumping them out of the way and leaving them. Which I can't altogether disagree with.

Having said that I'm not sure if the scale of the antisocial behaviour in Dublin combined with the resources available would make for a good outcome.

No harm in trying to address the worst offenders though.

Gravelly

mariaalice wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/amsterdam-scum-town-to-house-antisocial-neighbours-28943064.html

Did they ever go ahead with this plan?

They weren't pussy-footing around much were they? Scum Towns!

[Deleted User]

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/amsterdam-scum-town-to-house-antisocial-neighbours-28943064.html

Did they ever go ahead with this plan?

Pkiernan

Collie D wrote: »

Not sure it deserves to be blown up though as suggested a few posts back.

I see your point - not so much as blown up as completely annihilated, but with care taken so that commuters to and from Malahide wouldn't be impacted.

MonkieSocks

A plane is approaching Dublin Airport in very Thick Fog.

As they are descending 'the Pilot asks the Co-Pilot for an exact location reading.

The Co-pilot open's his window and quickly stuck out his hand and back in very quickly.

“Darndale” says the Co-Pilot

“How do you know that” says the pilot.

“Me watch is gone” sez the Co-Pilot

corner of hells

dhaughton99 wrote: »

That’s complete bull. You mean they have to sign an agreement but try get them evicted when they do start their crap.

It is bull , I've brought people to interviews with housing associations along with Local Authority staff and it's explained clearly the policy around loss of tenancy and how quick it can happen.
And seen individuals lose housing association tenancies in a matter of weeks.

corner of hells

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

BS!!

I know of a family recently moved from a “homeless” hub and already everyone living around them want out.

From a homeless hub into what ?
Private rented ? Local authority ? Supported housing ?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Btw much of that documentary is shot in other parts of Dublin like Coolock, Arbour Hill and Finglas south.

Collie D

dhaughton99 wrote: »

Pikey Connors didn’t do it any favors with that ****ty gang movie he had out last year. Wasn’t that based in Darndale?

It was. Well, the three minutes I watched of it before turning off was.

In answer to OP - I didn't watch the documentary but yes, it's a bit of a dump. Plenty of decent normal people but more than its fair share of little ****ers who don't give a crap about anyone and who won't ever make a worthwhile contribution to society other than keeping prison officers in work.

Not sure it deserves to be blown up though as suggested a few posts back.

dhaughton99

corner of hells wrote: »

I work in homeless services specifically around supporting people getting housed , what's happening now is that when local authorities have someone to house they go through to estate management checks first to purposely identify problem family's or individuals .
After that a housing association interviews the individuals or family to decide on suitability.The housing associations now charities/ngo independent of the local authorities and they have more power over selection to be housed and are quicker to deal with problem tenants.

So to say you could end up living beside a problem family is not quite true.

That’s complete bull. You mean they have to sign an agreement but try get them evicted when they do start their crap.

dhaughton99

Pikey Connors didn’t do it any favors with that ****ty gang movie he had out last year. Wasn’t that based in Darndale?

Sky King

is Darndale that bad??

It's like Hilldale in the back to the future movies, but the alternate reality version where Biff is in charge.