Peter Mcverrys support for syringe criminal.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Which replaced the income levy and the health levy. Which were both around before the banks "robbed" us.

Do you really think the billions we spent on bailing out the banks cost you nothing?

If you do, I don't know what to say, best of luck to you.

Leo Varadkar's spin doctors are worth every penny if people genuinely think someone on the dole is costing the country more than Seanie Fitzpatrick did.

Best of luck to you, I'll try no more to convince you.

weldoninhio wrote: »

I've always paid taxes and always will. Before the banks allegedly robbed me and after. I haven't noticed a big drop in my wages due to "bank tax".

not only did your taxes rise, a lot of people are paying far higher interest rates and bank charges than previously. In total, the average worker has probably lost 1-2k per annum, ie 20k over ten years.

That's a large multiple of what we each per per annum in out-of-work welfare transfers.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

not only did your taxes rise, a lot of people are paying far higher interest rates and bank charges than previously. In total, the average worker has probably lost 1-2k per annum, ie 20k over ten years.

That's a large multiple of what we each per per annum in out-of-work welfare transfers.

And that's not to mention the fact that we don't have those billions to spend on health, education, roads etc which indirectly effects you every day.

El_Duderino 09

KikiLaRue wrote: »

10 is extremely rare, in fact I think 7 is the highest I've ever heard of.

My brother went through rehab three times, but he'd tell you himself he only went because we made him go (he was a danger to himself and others, between drink driving and suicidal thoughts).

He's three months sober now through an outpatient programme and doing well. Hopefully this is the time that sticks.

From my own experience, his and those of my friends in recovery, it couldn't be clearer to me that no one chooses to become or stay an addict. It's a curse. People trying to get clean and sober should be supported, it makes them much more likely to become useful members of society.

I couldn't agree more. I would be happy to pay more tax towards rehab programmes. If the alternative is to ignore the problem and then act surprised when a person has health problems that we all need to pay for or commits a crime to feed their habit.

I don't know how I would handle a serious addiction like heroin. I have a decent life in terms of comfort and support. I cant imagine how much harder it would be for a person who has none of the advantages that I have, and doesn't have the incentives to get sober that I have. Someone who has no career, no job, no family, no home, no support.

Those people are most in need of help to get off drugs and are probably most likely to relapse. Doesn't mean we should give up on them as a society.

Igotadose

KikiLaRue wrote: »

10 is extremely rare, in fact I think 7 is the highest I've ever heard of.

My brother went through rehab three times, but he'd tell you himself he only went because we made him go (he was a danger to himself and others, between drink driving and suicidal thoughts).

He's three months sober now through an outpatient programme and doing well. Hopefully this is the time that sticks.

From my own experience, his and those of my friends in recovery, it couldn't be clearer to me that no one chooses to become or stay an addict. It's a curse. People trying to get clean and sober should be supported, it makes them much more likely to become useful members of society.

The reference I gave, listed many people with multiples of 10 times in rehab. Further, various studies of the effectiveness of AA treatment are condemnatory at a minimum. It's snake oil. Most people that recover from alcoholism, do so by stopping, not by making lists of people they've offended or convincing themselves they're powerless or giving themselves up to some 'higher power.' They stop. Again, AA is been measured at 5% effective (maybe 10%). And AA has a long history of being harmful - look up Bill W.'s definition of the '13th step' for an example.

Therapies like CBT are MUCH more effective at managing alcoholism than AA.
Programs tailored to the individual (i.e.,. not how AA does it), not 'group rehab' (another AA feature) are much more effective. I would fully support individual counseling with some state support, versus voodoo like AA and generic 'rehab.'

Also, when it comes to 'counseling,' there are a lot of quacks out there in Ireland calling themselves counselors, who have zero formal training and no qualifications other than having paid a membership to some umbrella organization that hands out diplomas if you show up and sleep through a couple of classes.

If the government in fact does get involved with supporting therapists who help addicts, said therapists should be board certified psychiatrists. THis is required in the US, in fact it's unlikely you can be a therapist with anything less than a master's degree in the US. Ireland badly needs to improve itself in that area.

Look up Project Match, for one lengthy study of addiction and how it can be managed. And how AA isn't the way.

"Curse" is voodoo. It's an addiction. AA is best described as a cult.

paw patrol

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Mc verry is a demagogue of the highest order and of course a Saint amongst the left wing media who never fail to join him for a game of softball

Recall him being interviewed on radio by Ray D'Arcy and claiming that evictions and repossession of homes should be illegal, obviously D'Arcy never said a word

Tedious communist

a Jesuit communist..that would be right though
all commies tend to be from the silver spoon brigade.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/damien-reilly-courts-syringe-robbery-4623994-May2019/

“A MAN WHO threatened to stab a woman with a syringe needle during a robbery has been jailed for three years”

“The defence also presented a letter from Fr Peter McVerry saying that Reilly was stable and doing well in his drug rehabilitation”

Peter Mcverry in my eyes is a hypocrite who loves the limelight.

Giving a letter in court to support a scumbag who held up a women with a syringe.

The man had 17 previous convictions.

I’ve heard he also pays fines out of charity money for low life’s.

Can’t stand the man and his self righteous attitude.

I respect Peter Mc Verry.

But as someone who was with her heavily pregnant mother at the age of three while she was held up by a syringe this does not sit well with me.

My Dad came from the same neighborhood that low life came from and the lowlife's family were slightly better off!

How low do you have to be to choose a heavily pregnant mother with a toddler ?

It would have REALLY sickened me to know that someone would help him over my Dad's family etc when they were in the same area etc.

I am not getting at Peter MC Verry though. I still support his work.

I obviously no one should be beyond redemption. Part of redemption though is reconciliation.

Igotadose wrote: »

The reference I gave, listed many people with multiples of 10 times in rehab. Further, various studies of the effectiveness of AA treatment are condemnatory at a minimum. It's snake oil. Most people that recover from alcoholism, do so by stopping, not by making lists of people they've offended or convincing themselves they're powerless or giving themselves up to some 'higher power.' They stop. Again, AA is been measured at 5% effective (maybe 10%). And AA has a long history of being harmful - look up Bill W.'s definition of the '13th step' for an example.

I've met hundreds of alcoholics and addicts over the last few years. Some of them come in once and leave because they don't like it, that's fine. Some stay sober for a little while and then relapse; to me this isn't a failure, an alcoholic staying sober for any length of time is quite an achievement. Many people stay sober in the long term.

Igotadose wrote: »

Therapies like CBT are MUCH more effective at managing alcoholism than AA.
Programs tailored to the individual (i.e.,. not how AA does it), not 'group rehab' (another AA feature) are much more effective. I would fully support individual counseling with some state support, versus voodoo like AA and generic 'rehab.'

I have no issue with CBT at all and I always encourage other people in recovery to seek therapy as well. I'd be interested to see stats to back up the claim that it's significantly more successful though.

One major difference between AA and therapy is that there is no charge for AA, it's run entirely on voluntary donations. That's very useful for people who don't have the time for HSE waiting lists or the money for private therapy.

Igotadose wrote: »

Also, when it comes to 'counseling,' there are a lot of quacks out there in Ireland calling themselves counselors, who have zero formal training and no qualifications other than having paid a membership to some umbrella organization that hands out diplomas if you show up and sleep through a couple of classes.

That's true and it really bothers me, nobody should be allowed to have that level of trust put in them without the necessary qualifications

Igotadose wrote: »

"Curse" is voodoo. It's an addiction. AA is best described as a cult.

I've never hear of a cult that doesn't ask you for anything and that you can leave whenever you want. I decided to stop going to meetings for about a year, I stayed sober but ultimately I found it helpful to go back. Nobody pressured me to leave, nobody pressured me to come back.

I'm atheist/agnostic and I was personally involved in setting up a meeting in Dublin for people who don't want to get sober with a higher power.

I dont want to demonize addicts or Peter Mc Verry or even the guy in the OP. But i just want to say victims are not the perfect son you dont need to worry about because they will be ok anyway. They have trauma and it interferes with life. They need help.

Igotadose wrote: »

The reference I gave, listed many people with multiples of 10 times in rehab. Further, various studies of the effectiveness of AA treatment are condemnatory at a minimum.

I don't think anybody doubts that its happened that people have gone to rehab ten times or more. Maybe some people have gone fifty times. That's all very rare, though.

As for the rest of your post, nobody's condemning CBT. My sister went to a rehab facility that didn't offer CBT, she didn't find it helpful, and moved somewhere else. Touch wood, things are going great. But as Kiki said, the focus is on getting through every day. My family will be disappointed if she doesn't stay sober, but we never expect miracles.

I'm not familiar with the AA, maybe someone else can tell me, but I have gone to a family meeting and I'm sure there's something in their credo that denies miracles. The last word I'd use to describe them as is a cult.

AA won't work for a lot of people but if it helps, keep at it.

My sister was an alcoholic for seven or eight years before I realised it. I'd lived with her for some of that time. So I'm just conscious that people in difficulty might be reading this and thinking "Oh well, it all looks a bit pointless". It isn't.

bubblypop wrote: »

I know that they do. I have seen the cheques. I'd imagine it's at local level.
You should ask in work, I'm sure they will tell you they do.

Im telling you right now neither organisation pays peoples fines, and if you believe they do is madness. :pac::pac::pac:

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. I would be happy to pay more tax towards rehab programmes. If the alternative is to ignore the problem and then act surprised when a person has health problems that we all need to pay for or commits a crime to feed their habit.

I don't know how I would handle a serious addiction like heroin. I have a decent life in terms of comfort and support. I cant imagine how much harder it would be for a person who has none of the advantages that I have, and doesn't have the incentives to get sober that I have. Someone who has no career, no job, no family, no home, no support.

Those people are most in need of help to get off drugs and are probably most likely to relapse. Doesn't mean we should give up on them as a society.

Also maybe decriminalizing drugs ...it would drive the price down and make it easier for doctors to supply them.

We also have to remember drug addicts are victims themselves. Many are victims of sexual abuse or other abuse etc.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't think anybody doubts that its happened that people have gone to rehab ten times or more. Maybe some people have gone fifty times. That's all very rare, though.

As for the rest of your post, nobody's condemning CBT. My sister went to a rehab facility that didn't offer CBT, she didn't find it helpful, and moved somewhere else. Touch wood, things are going great. But as Kiki said, the focus is on getting through every day. My family will be disappointed if she doesn't stay sober, but we never expect miracles.

I'm not familiar with the AA, maybe someone else can tell me, but I have gone to a family meeting and I'm sure there's something in their credo that denies miracles. The last word I'd use to describe them as is a cult.

AA won't work for a lot of people but if it helps, keep at it.

My sister was an alcoholic for seven or eight years before I realised it. I'd lived with her for some of that time. So I'm just conscious that people in difficulty might be reading this and thinking "Oh well, it all looks a bit pointless". It isn't.

I was in treatment for Heroin addiction 8 times, I am clean and sober since 1997, I am now working in the homeless services and have been for 13 years since completing univeristy and becoming a productive member of society.

SouthDublin6w wrote: »

I was in treatment for Heroin addiction 8 times, I am clean and sober since 1997, I am now working in the homeless services and have been for 13 years since completing univeristy and becoming a productive member of society.

Congratulations.

People also forget that not all heroin-addicted people are homeless. Some of them are working, are parents, are living in the suburbs and lots of people don't even know. Being addicted to heroin or being on treatment, ie methadone, doesn't put you into some category of 'bad', and the same applies to any other addiction.

Sometimes I read threads like this and am just glad for people for whom addiction has never entered their home. They're so angry with the idea of it, I don't know what they'd do if it happened to them or their families.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I've never seen Peter McVerry say anything negative about people who work. Can you clarify what you mean?

He was very critical of opposition to halting sites

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I often think this. I'm not Christian but I think McVerry is doing a lot of the things Christians are supposed to do. Jesus would probably approve of McVerry. I can't remember Jesus being big on helping the comfortable or the wealthy. He was more into helping those in need of most help. Makes sense to be fair.

McVerry is a serious player in the poverty industry, he has a huge ego

A person who I think is living a life jesus might espouse is brother Kevin of the capuchin Centre, no courting celebrity either

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Congratulations.

People also forget that not all heroin-addicted people are homeless. Some of them are working, are parents, are living in the suburbs and lots of people don't even know. Being addicted to heroin or being on treatment, ie methadone, doesn't put you into some category of 'bad', and the same applies to any other addiction.

Sometimes I read threads like this and am just glad for people for whom addiction has never entered their home.

I was a nasty piece of work as an addivt, my circumstances dictated what I was willing to do or how Low my morals woulld allow me to go. This is a harsh reality of being dependent on a substance, you will do anything. I came from a wealthy household, In a good area, with a great upbringing.

addiction nearly ripped my family apart, Your right, I wish my family never suffered from having a family member sick with the disease of addiction. But hey ho.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

McVerry is a serious player in the poverty industry, he has a huge ego

Ego? In what sense?

Sonny noggs

SouthDublin6w wrote: »

Ego? In what sense?

Naming a ‘charity’ after himself is a bad sign for a start.

Statistically only half make it to the first year clean. However ONCE you make it a year your chances of getting to five years greatly improve. And then after five years your chances improve again.

Its something like 80% of people relapse within one year.

So if you are trying to stay clean and sober you only have a 20% chance of doing that when you FIRST start.

But if you MAKE it to that one year your chances of staying sober shoot up to 50%

Then if you make it to FIVE years your chances shoot up again to 85% chance of remaining sober.

If you make ten years it improves again.

A lot of people trying to quit the first time etc don't make it and they fail again and again. They think its impossible or it will always be that hard.

They don't realize that the math is against them for the first year.

But simply getting to that one year ..can be the revelation they need and their chances shoot up ...

It gets better.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

not only did your taxes rise, a lot of people are paying far higher interest rates and bank charges than previously. In total, the average worker has probably lost 1-2k per annum, ie 20k over ten years.

That's a large multiple of what we each per per annum in out-of-work welfare transfers.

Higher mortgage interest here is due to the fact repossession is near impossible compared to every other eurozone country

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the AA, maybe someone else can tell me, but I have gone to a family meeting and I'm sure there's something in their credo that denies miracles. The last word I'd use to describe them as is a cult.

Only the first step of AA is about alcohol, the rest is about how to live your life. There's a huge focus on being honest with yourself and others, and keeping your resentments in check as they can be big triggers to drink. And yes, making amends when you f**k up. Doing the steps was a transformative experience for me.

A lot of people just come in to talk about their day; alcoholism is a deeply lonely and isolating thing to experience and finding others who have been through it and come out the other side is very comforting - you don't get that from therapy.

There's also a big focus on god, which I have mostly chosen to ignore and a focus on service (running the meetings, helping others).

It's a fascinating organisation in that it is the embodiment of anarchy; it's a global movement that is leaderless, decisions are made at a local level by consensus, and there are no rules - there is a set of principles/suggestions we try and stick by and we hold ourselves to it, there's no real hierarchy of power, each group can do what it wants. And no one can be kicked out.

There is only one requirement for membership - a desire to stop drinking. You don't even have to have stopped, you just need the desire to. People sometimes show up drunk and we don't kick them out, because as long as they have a desire to stop they are welcome.

AA has many flaws. It was founded in Ohio in the 1930s (and immediately decided all were welcome, any skin colour or religion, men, women, gay people - remarkably progressive for the time and place it was) and in some ways it is stuck there. For example, the book is written in very old fashioned language and has a 'chapter to wives'.

But it helps so many people, and it does so for free. People who hate it are very misguided IMHO; if you like it go to meetings, if you don't, don't. No need to trash something that has changed millions of people's lives.

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Naming a ‘charity’ after himself is a bad sign for a start.

The Peter McVerry trust is called so as he donated money into a "trust" for the organisation that Pat and Brian and all the other Board members run, That peter isnt on.

The man is a saint and if you cant see the good he does you need to wake up, He drives a 2001 registered car, hardly a ego.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

He was very critical of opposition to halting sites

I thought he said pope francis should go visit a halting site?

By the by i am not christian or anything.

I have worked with Peter McVerry though.

IMO about addiction don't worry about it too much. You'll get there some day.

SouthDublin6w wrote: »

Ego? In what sense?

His trust employs a lot of people and is in receipt of millions in government subsidies, he likes to lecture government on a regular basis, let him put his name on a ballot

SouthDublin6w wrote: »

Ego? In what sense?

this is oddly reminiscent of a conversation I've observed on twitter. Some bored individual was questioning why McVerry named his charity after himself.

The McVerry charity replied that it had had another name when he set it up, but he became such a decent-sounding individual, they'd pestered him into doing it.

I assume McVerry agreed on a logical basis, knowing there would be some flak but not being one to pay attention to petty criticism.

You just have to read his articles to see what an intellect he has. He didn't need to feed and provide beds for people on the fringes of society to make a name for himself. The man could have had any career he'd wanted.