alastair wrote: » Has anyone provided any back-up for disputing the claims? How do you know that the RIA haven't upheld such "wild" complaints?
tolerant from cork wrote: » Because such a behaviour would be gross misconduct and management of the centre would be informed immediately. They wer not.
alastair wrote: » Right where you falsely accused a poster of amnesia, where there was no suggestion of amnesia, feigned or genuine. That's pretty dishonest.
alastair wrote: » They weren't? Have you evidence to support this claim?
tolerant from cork wrote: » Have you heard of sarcasm?
tolerant from cork wrote: » Management of the centre has. Obviously they can't post it here. RIA would be obliged to provide you with such information.
We are concerned of repeated instances where management/staff enter residents rooms unannounced or where the resident is not present to give consent. These issues need clarification in the rules and procedures document. Explanation needs to be given as to what are the “operational grounds” and why reasonable notification could not be sought.
alastair wrote: » Have you heard of dishonest accusations?
Gatling wrote: » Its not for me or others to disprove wild accusations the onus is on the person making wild accusations to back up what there saying , A read of the chater will back my post up
alastair wrote: » The RIA don't publish the nature of complaints made, or indeed the nature of complaints upheld. The Integration Centre, however, in it's submission on the effectiveness of the RIA's oversight of Direct Provision Centres, had this to say:
alastair wrote: » There's little 'wild' about the claims made tbh.
tolerant from cork wrote: » I did. Lots of comments here accusing people of crime ... but you care about amnesia more. Good luck with your logic.
Gatling wrote: » Wild accusations plain and simple and absolutely nothing to back it up
alastair wrote: » The views of the Integration Centre report would appear to lend some credence to the claims.
alastair wrote: » No-one was accused of a crime. That's your straw man. If the rules were being abused, as claimed, that's far from sufficient evidence of criminal activity - harassment or otherwise. You, however, displayed bare-faced dishonesty.
tolerant from cork wrote: » Room checks are explained in the rule book. Every room has to be checked once a week for maintenance purposes. In a regular hotel it's done when guests move out but here obviously it couldn't be done that way.
The centre manager is obliged by the Reception and Integration Agency to maintain minimum standards of accommodation [for the benefit of all residents] at all times. This may result in bedroom inspections by either the manager, the Reception and Integration Agency or by inspectors appointed by the Reception and Integration Agency. For operational reasons, it will not always be possible to forewarn residents of these inspections. Residents must cooperate with all such bedroom inspections.
tolerant from cork wrote: » Rules were not abused.
We are concerned of repeated instances where management/staff enter residents rooms unannounced or where the resident is not present to give consent.
reprise wrote: » So the Integration Centre was so concerned, they buried it in a report that they were not asked for?
alastair wrote: » The rules are pretty open to abuse: And the concerns of the Integration Centre are straightforward enough, taking these rules into account.
alastair wrote: » They highlighted it in a report they produced on the effectiveness of the RIA's oversight of Direct Provision centres. If you see that as burying it, I'm not sure what to say to you?
reprise wrote: » If you don't think bursting into peoples rooms like the flipping SAS is worthy of no more than a unqualified mention in a seven year old report, I'm really not sure what to say to you.http://www.integrationcentre.ie/getattachment/c503918e-784c-4fba-baef-a3e208520974/Review-of-the-Direct-Provision-Reception-and-Accom.aspx
alastair wrote: » The only reference to the SAS, is the one you just made, so nope - I doubt it's anything like the SAS. The reference in the report is quite specific and unambiguous. It's not buried, as you claimed and yes, the report is seven years old - does that make the concerns any less valid?
tolerant from cork wrote: » Being open to abuse doesn't mean that they are abused.
tolerant from cork wrote: » Can't give you full story here unfortunately. Usually those checks are done due to health and safety reasons. Main concerns would be fire safety and hygiene.
tolerant from cork wrote: » The report also doesn't specify the centre. Loads of the private and poorly run centres are already closed.
reprise wrote: » Seven years ago this should have been a huge story if there was a shred of truth in it and not some anecdotal bull**** on a par with asylum seekers dumping prams for new ones.
alastair wrote: » But the report highlights instances that would be considered abuses of the rules - not that different to the posters claims in this thread. Presumably it's mostly concerned with the use of electric hobs, George Foreman grills, etc? Whatever the reasons - well-intended or otherwise, there's clearly been the perception of abuse, or over-zealous application of the rules.
Pixie Elf wrote: » in terms of taking the protest to somewhere else.... in kinsale there has been countless meetings with management and staff.... promises are made - nothing changes people didnt rise up in celtic tiger years as they hadnt been there so so long at that time this is genuinely about forcing the issue to be looked at - they have tried so many times and feel like this is their only avenue it is not all the appeals that people seeking asylum make that has created the backlog... it is that the high court is backlogged - this should also be addressed for others waiting for their cases to be heard in fact i think you may be misinformed regarding the appeals... you can appeal a decision on refugee status and i think although i need to check you can appeal if you are refused humanitarian leave to remain 2 appeals....not hundreds like its being made out to be i support the residents - people should not be made to languish for so many years allow people to work............thats a no brainer no i do not mean free education - i mean any education above leaving certificate (as i understand it) no i mean a fair system cant remember what else you asked
