They bailed out the banks instead. Using state money. That cost everyone.
They didn't bail out the shareholders (owners) of the banks. The owners' investments (in shares) were rendered worthless. They bailed out the depositors and the workers.
You're the one engaging in spin. You have two big problems
I doubt I'll be enlightened by your contributions to teh debate
I'll be honest I hadn't really been following to whole mica redress issue at all until I read through this thread. While I can empathise with with the situation it seems there's an awful lot of spin, whataboutery and dishonest comparisons being thrown about in an effort to explain why people should be entitled to what amounts essentially an open chequebook by trying to get the government to agree to 100% redress.
PUP was NOT a 100% redress scheme. The government did not pay 100% of everyones wages while thye were out of work due to Covid, everyone essentially got a fixed amount regardless of income. The government have offered a comparable resolution here by offering a fixed sum of 350,000 to those effected here. This apparently is not good enough.
While I think most people can agree the government overspends on social housing this is not comparable. The state maintains ownership of social housing. People are asking here for the government to pay for private housing. Somehow I doubt anyone would accapt the offer of social housing as a resolution to issue, regardless of what it cost.
Just like with PUP, just because there are hygiene standards in the food industry doesn't mean the government will pay 100% of my lost income if I'm off work sick from food poisoning.
The councils are responsible for maintaining public spaces, as such they have a legal duty of care towards those using them. The government is not responsible for the maintainence of private property. If they were they would have already been sued over the issue.
Paying to rebuild private property affected by mica is in no way comparable to spending on infrastructure projects. Building infrastructure in an investment that benefits everyone on the island. spending the same money repairing or rebuilding private proeprty benefits no one but the property owner.
It's a horrible situation to be in, and I think everyone would agree that the government should do soemthing to help those affected. However, the government is not in any liable for the issue, and those affected are not entitled to anything. Refusing to compromise and demanding that the government pay to rebuild properties regardless of the cost will not get you much in the way of support from the general public, especailly considering how many people are currently struggling to even buy their own homes.
I'm not demanding anything. The working group and the government are working together to come to an agreement. I support the working group's requests.
Typing 'FACT' doesn't actually mean that the sentence following the word is actually factual. It's merely your opinion.
Earlier you posted that people should be saying 'please' and 'thank you' rather than having a sense of entitlement. I will gladly say please to the powers that be if I had access to them. Saying please to some randomer on Boards achieves nothing.
if you're here to debate rather than simply dismiss my posts, then please make some attempt to back up your assertion that the two fact I posted are incorrect. Anything other than that is playing the man not the ball - a most disingenuous way to debate
The government didn't enforce the regulations and let the block suppliers pump out defective blocks. In my opinion, they should have been and are, therefore, on the hook. I know there are a few who think otherwise. That's fine.
Size alone is not what decides if a home is luxurious. A large empty room only becomes luxurious when it's filled with tasteful fixtures, fittings and furniture. Usually high end. That's not included in the redress scheme.
Because they don't have a hope in hell of winning any legal case against the State, they go on an emotional crusade on tv and the media instead.
But some of the spokespeople for their cause came over as arrogant, blustery and entitled.
It might have went down well with other people who have the mica problem with their properties.
A bit like the DUP, winning the hearts and minds of their own community, but nobody else's.
It went down like a lead balloon with the general public.
Especially when the true figure of costs came out.
I think you express it well when you say "It's a horrible situation to be in, and I think everyone would agree that the government should do soemthing to help those affected. However, the government is not in any liable for the issue, and those affected are not entitled to anything."
If someone becomes homeless, I think folk generally agree Government should help. This can happen to people for all kinds of reasons, like job loss or marital breakdown. Or, apparently, because someone did a self-build in Donegal only to find that the brick they bought from their local supplier crumbles after a few years. I actually can't fathom how this campaign has gotten so much mileage without fairly basic realities being pointed out.
I can sympathise up to a point. But I find the strident demands for 100% compo off-putting. For some reason, I find a particular song ringing in my ears[quote]And if I could I'd build a wall around old Donegal
North and South, to keep them out, by God I'd build it tall[/quote]Would the wall cost less than €3 billion?
If houses in Dublin had been hit with mica I dont think we would see as many begrudgers in this thread.
I cant understand why some here are posting the same trolly comments over and over on how the people affected by mica shouldnt get any or no redress or the government arent responsible etc etc. Are some posters here keeping up with whats happening in the real world? FYI The government is committed to a redress scheme.
Actually, I find that outrageous. Northern Ireland is the United Kingdom's problem, why the hell are we footing the bill for that basket case of a country?
It is a fact that the State isn't legally obliged to step in to assist.
The government hasn't committed to a redress scheme. It's committed to a grant scheme called "Financial Assistance Scheme for the Remediation of Damaged Dwellings Due to Defective Concrete Blocks"
Redress it ain't.
Maybe not legally but morally?
I'd agree that there is a moral obligation to provide some assistance. The level of assistance should be based on need and means, not wants and wishes.
Before the Government fall over themselves to 'pay out' taxpayers monies ..can they first find out and list the suppliers of the faulty blocks in the first place, then the builders that used them and the schemes or one off houses involved. They should then fond out how many of these houses were covered under the Construction Guarantee Scheme. Similarly they should examine any affected house built as Social Housing as all such building had to be covered by a Builders Building Bond and resultant remedial costs should be recoverable from the Insurance Bond companies.
So, other than a rant, you have nothing to counter the factual points that the poster made?
Morally, the government should build a McMansion for everyone in the country so that we all can live in equal luxury.
It wasn't a rant. I countered the 'facts' in a later post.
Great contribution. Thanks.
If house owners are going to be compensated for mica \ pyrite issue why would compensation not apply to other house owners who have other substandard materials used in the construction of their house, which have caused issues.
Why just compensate house owners for shoddy materials, why not compensate owners of houses who have have issues caused by shoddy builders.
I have a very (old house 100 years approx) with a crack in wall.I am not sure if due to shoddy materials or a shoddy builder. I cannot afford to fix it as would probably cost €50k. Am I not as entitled to have repairs paid for tax payer as those with mica \ pyrite or better still have a new house built for me.
I have not heard of one Builder being sued or any block producer being sued by house owners why ? Even if companies went bust it is still possible to sue Directors. Has anyone tried. All Builders would have paid insurance as would Block producers. Has anyone tried to sue these insurance companies.
What about the Engineers \ valuers who were involved in certifying construction \ value for mortgage has anyone tried suing these ?
No the easy route is shout at the Government who always cave in as they don't like risking any votes.
What about all the homeowners out there who paid for their house why should they now pay a share of cost of other peoples houses. What about people who cannot afford to buy a house and pay rent every month. Why should they have the additional cost of paying for other peoples house repairs \ rebuilds.
It's only a grand for every man, woman and child in the country. LOL.
But seriously it brings a tear to your eye. And the builders. They are on the pigs back with all this. Another couple of years work. Money for old rope.
People keep saying that the Government should have had checks in place.
Surely it should have been up to the builders to ensure that the blocks they purchased were up to standard.
Oh but you didnt. In fact you conceded the state liability to be a moral one rather than a legal one so FACT 1 is conceded by you.
Fact 2 was an objective statement that size is one of the primary determinants of "luxury" - and now for the opinion part: I believe you attempted to create a false narrative of equating large houses to sheds - and you were called out on it
All part of the debate. I countered them by conceding the first one, even though I do think that the government has a legal obligation. That's my opinion. I have no legal training to prove it.
The second one that you have, yet again, twisted is another opinion. You are calling me out for something I didn't say. Where did I say that a large house is the same as a shed?
Lastly, I feel that, rather than debate or discuss, you are here to bait and get a rise. Your confrontational posting style is putting me off replying to you. I hope you have a nice evening. I'll be spending it trying to book my family and I into a cheap hotel in Dublin for the protest on Friday.
Given that many of these houses were self-builds, I suspect in many cases you'll find the builder is the owner that is now looking for compo.
Compo for their own mistake.
How is the state responsible for this?
Why should the taxpayer pay for this?
Caveat Emptor comes to mind.
Good luck in Dublin hope it goes well. I fully support the 100 % redress and as a Donegal homeowner I have mica concerns myself waiting for an engineer at the minute so I very much have a vested interest in this
Some posters here are confrontational but is there a chance they may have a point. We have no real leverage in this so public opinion is vital.
I think at this stage a easily accessible 100% scheme capped at 350k might not be a bad option. If that is in fact what is on offer.
Personally right now looking at my house I would take it.
Anyway as I said good luck on Friday
Just to correct a comment in this, the cost may well equate to a children's hospital, but it's not in a very short space of time.
Most experts in this crisis, including many engineers, have stated that this could be a task that will likely go on for 15 to 20yrs.
So it's actually spending 150m to 200m annually.
A builder buys the blocks in good faith, it's not his job to test them.
Say he had to test the blocks, does that mean he has to test the timber in the roof, roof tiles, windows and doors before they are put in, and while he is at it test the bathroom suite and all the electric appliances, and the list goes on and on.
Now do you see where I'm coming from.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0b9a43cca122fb9538e56a7ad3e3fae2.svg)
