# Breakdown of law and order



## The_Banker (6 Mar 2011)

http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives...still-held-over-limerick-stabbing-496108.html

Two people arrested in Limerick yesterday after a man was found with multiple stab wounds outside a burning house are still being questioned by gardaí.
A 20-year-old man is recovering at the Mid-Western Regional Hospital in Limerick following the double attack in which he sustained wounds to his face and chest.
It is believed he had confronted a group of people about noise levels outside his home in the early hours of yesterday morning when he was stabbed.
A man and woman are being questioned by gardaí about the incident. 




I was completely shocked by this story. Surely society has failed if this can happen?
​


----------



## Sue Ellen (7 Mar 2011)

The incident in Smithfield Market was even worse.  Absolutely disgraceful.


----------



## horusd (7 Mar 2011)

I saw that Smithfield inccident on TV last night. Incredible. Given that there were advanced warnigs of trouble, there seemed to be very few Gardai on the ground. I was due to go into Smithfield last night for a movie, I gave it a miss. The council have been trying to close it down for yrs, I can't see it taking place again. As a by the by, there is a large hotel on the corner of the square - this Donnybrook was hardly putting our best foot forward on the tourism front.


----------



## shnaek (7 Mar 2011)

The_Banker said:


> I was completely shocked by this story. Surely society has failed if this can happen?


But don't you know there is no such thing as society? We are only 4 meals away from Anarchy 
And the reason for this? Lack of individual self restraint, and lack of an individual moral code. It always comes back to the individual.


----------



## mugga (7 Mar 2011)

+  lack of punishment in many cases for people who commit crime. If you don't consider the punishment as any great hardship on you then why bother holding back?? I think people who commit crime at any level should be punished, if it's something where a jail sentence is not necessary then a lean should be put on that persons income to pay for the crime no matter how low  the income is for an appropriate length of time.  No  refusing to pay a fine and hopping into jail for a few weeks. Learn a lesson on the small crime before you get to the big crime!!11


----------



## Marion (7 Mar 2011)

*Programme for Government 2011 - 2016*

*Anti-Social Behaviour*


The Government will tackle anti-social behaviour and the plague of low level crime that is so destructive of community life.
We will build on the existing community policing partnerships and forums to enhance trust between local communities and their Gardaí. It is Government policy that a higher priority be attached to community policing and that, within available resources, there is a higher Garda visibility in the local neighbourhoods worst affected.
In the case of public or social housing, we will implement a 12-month probationary tenancy for all new tenants. Where tenants engage in anti-social behaviour during this period the tenancy will be terminated.
We will give special emphasis to alternative programmes for juvenile offenders through extensions to the Juvenile Liaison Officer Scheme and the Garda Juvenile Diversion Programme, and the extended use of Restorative Justice where appropriate.
We will also examine outcomes-based contracts with community organisations to help reduce reoffending by young people, based on the social impact bond model in the U.K..

Marion


----------



## truthseeker (8 Mar 2011)

Marion said:


> In the case of public or social housing, we will implement a 12-month probationary tenancy for all new tenants. Where tenants engage in anti-social behaviour during this period the tenancy will be terminated.


 
Not nearly harsh enough. Why only for new tenants? It should apply to both new and old and it should apply to everyone living in the house, not just the person whose name is on the tenancy. And it should apply for conviction of any crime.


----------



## Complainer (8 Mar 2011)

truthseeker said:


> Not nearly harsh enough. Why only for new tenants? It should apply to both new and old and it should apply to everyone living in the house, not just the person whose name is on the tenancy. And it should apply for conviction of any crime.


Why only council tenants?

Surely if these rules are a good idea, it should apply to all estates - public and private. Let's just dump anyone who's family member commits a crime out on the streets - right?


----------



## truthseeker (8 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> Why only council tenants?
> 
> Surely if these rules are a good idea, it should apply to all estates - public and private. Let's just dump anyone who's family member commits a crime out on the streets - right?


 
If you are a council tenant the society you live in is supporting you, and putting a roof over your head. If you then decide to break the rules of that society you are effectively giving 2 fingers to the very people who are housing and supporting you. Why should you be allowed to stay in the house in that situation?

Perhaps if there was a chance that a mother could lose the roof over her head as a result of her childs criminal activities the child might think twice about engaging in such activities, or the mother might instill a healthy respect for the law in the child.

Is there a particular reason why you think society should house convicted criminals in nice homes on taxpayers money?

I dont see how this is relevant in private housing as the person has bought the house themselves and are not being housed by society as a whole.


----------



## Purple (8 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> Why only council tenants?
> 
> Surely if these rules are a good idea, it should apply to all estates - public and private. Let's just dump anyone who's family member commits a crime out on the streets - right?



In the cases being discussed the state is the landlord. I agree that the rule should be applied more generally; it should also apply anywhere the state is paying the rent.
I don't think too many private landlords would have a problem with it applying in the private rental market as well; if I was a landlord and I found out that my tenant was a criminal I'd be delighted to have an excuse to boot them out.

I’m surprised that you are taking such a hard line stance on this issue.


----------



## Complainer (8 Mar 2011)

truthseeker said:


> If you are a council tenant the society you live in is supporting you, and putting a roof over your head. If you then decide to break the rules of that society you are effectively giving 2 fingers to the very people who are housing and supporting you. Why should you be allowed to stay in the house in that situation?
> 
> Perhaps if there was a chance that a mother could lose the roof over her head as a result of her childs criminal activities the child might think twice about engaging in such activities, or the mother might instill a healthy respect for the law in the child.
> 
> ...


I see. So you are quite happy that neighbours in private estates will have to put up with anti-social behaviour and having criminals all round, but you provide a greater protection to neighbours in public estates?

I'd challenge you to take a little tour of the flats in Rosemount near Dundrum, or St Nathi's House in Churchtown, or Oliver Bond House and see if they meet your definition of 'nice homes'.


----------



## Purple (8 Mar 2011)

St. Nathy's House I know well as a friend lives there. He is of the un-PC opinion that the big problem with it is his neighbours, not the building. For those that don't know where it is it's the small block of flats beside the Bottle Tower pub on Braemor Road, between Dundrum and Churchtown. It's one of the best locations in South Dublin.
Rosemount is, well, in Dundrum. Dundrum is a quintessential upper-middleclass leafy suburb (good Labour Party territory).
The Oliver Bond complex is in a bad state, despite massive renovation work carries out in the early 90's. The is mainly the fault of some of the people who live there.


----------



## csirl (8 Mar 2011)

The issue of people who society in general is supporting not conforming with societies rules is an interesting one. I think that one of the problems is the sense of detachment that the individuals involved and the general public in general have from the source of the support.

There should be an educational/advertising campaign started to ensure that those in receipt of such supports are fully aware of where the money is coming from i.e. from the pockets of hard working tax paying citizens. The people who are supplying the money i.e. the aforementioned hard working citizens, should also have more awareness of where there money is going and their views as to whether or not certain types of anti-society behaviour should disqualify people from recieving this money should be taken on board. 

Non-contributory social welfare should not be regarded as a 'right' or 'entitlement' - it should be at the grace and favour of those who are paying for it and it should be an absolute condition that the recipient engages in good behaviour.


----------



## Betsy Og (8 Mar 2011)

The_Banker said:


> I was completely shocked by this story. Surely society has failed if this can happen?​


 
If you knew where it happened you wouldnt be at all surprised. Not that I have any personal experience myself but basically its a notorious part of Limerick city. He must have taken leave of his senses to get involved.

Why there arent permanent garda "bases" in those areas I'll never know. Basically they are prisons but with no prison guards to protect ordinary folk that find themselves living there. Dont know how ordinary people live there, I think I'd rather sleep rough in a haybarn somewhere than face that.


----------



## horusd (8 Mar 2011)

Unless you believe that some people are innately bad, or prone to lawlessness, depravity and violence, a link must be made between deprivation, poverty and social disorder. As part of a thesis a number of yrs ago, I mapped drug addiction & crime in Dublin. No surprise it was highly concentrated in deprived areas. We had an insane social policy vis a vis crime in Ireland. No great compunction is made in housing prisioners @€ 80-90K a yr, but we will not invest much lower amounts in early social intervention, with school meals, with after-school services, with adequate guidence and counselling, with educational support etc. We allow the poor to be ghettoized as well. Is it any wonder at all that we have serious problems with violence and crime?


----------



## WicklowMan (8 Mar 2011)

I recall speaking to a girl who lived in Southill (one or two 'h's? ) Her verdict was that the place was fine until the powers that be tried a social experiment that failed. This went along the lines of moving scumbags into the area in the hope that the existing majority of good people would turn them good.

Instead what happened was that the good people largely moved out, and the scumbag population exploded. I'm much in favour of breaking up nasty cliques in these areas: send one family to Cork and another to Limerick and another to Donegal. If they keep causing problems, keep moving them so they don't get a foothold anywhere. They'll eventually get sick of moving.

I find it gas that the response to anti - social problems is ultimately nearly always to tear down flats / build new houses. As was previously alluded to, building aren't the problem, people are (and failed social engineering)


----------



## Firefly (9 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> I see. So you are quite happy that neighbours in private estates will have to put up with anti-social behaviour and having criminals all round, but you provide a greater protection to neighbours in public estates?
> 
> I'd challenge you to take a little tour of the flats in Rosemount near Dundrum, or St Nathi's House in Churchtown, or Oliver Bond House and see if they meet your definition of 'nice homes'.



They're free..they shouldn't be "nice". They should be adequate and nothing more. If you don't like them then work out how to make your lot better like the majority of people who work and pay taxes. Anyone who is unable to work on medical grounds excluded....their homes should be *very nice*, as long as those "on the sick" don't qualify.

As Purple said, the State is the landlord here and should boot them out. This kind of thing IMO happens less in estates where everyone owns their own home (without subsidy). As with most things in life, if it's free it will be abused. People who get free/ close to free houses do not for some reason have any incentive to make their homes nice. Some do, granted, but a disproportionate amount don't.


----------



## Complainer (9 Mar 2011)

Dissapointed to see the usual oul AAM guff and nonsense being promulgated here, e.g.

- that private homes are not subsidised by the State (anyone heard of mortgage interest relief)
- that anti-social behaviour only happens in council estates
- that people in council houses don't make their homes nice
- that people on social welfare don't pay tax 

Sometimes, I really wonder if people here are living in the same country as I am.


----------



## truthseeker (9 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> I see. So you are quite happy that neighbours in private estates will have to put up with anti-social behaviour and having criminals all round, but you provide a greater protection to neighbours in public estates?


 
If a person who is renting in a private estate commits a crime or is otherwise behaving in an antisocial manner then I would expect the landlord to kick them out - what is the difference between a private landlord and the state as a landlord kicking them out?
There is no control over someone who actually owns their own home, but generally speaking if youve paid for something yourself you will treat it better than if it was free.



Complainer said:


> I'd challenge you to take a little tour of the flats in Rosemount near Dundrum, or St Nathi's House in Churchtown, or Oliver Bond House and see if they meet your definition of 'nice homes'.


 
Theyre not cardboxes on the street - which is all you could expect in a lot of countries - so by comparison - yes, they are nice homes. The areas may not be so nice due to the people in them, but that is a different issue.


----------



## Purple (9 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> Dissapointed to see the usual oul AAM guff and nonsense being promulgated here, e.g.


Lets break this down so;



Complainer said:


> - that private homes are not subsidised by the State (anyone heard of mortgage interest relief)


Nobody said otherwise.



Complainer said:


> - that anti-social behaviour only happens in council estates


Nobody said that. It was said that there is more antisocial behaviour on council estates. I don’t think anyone could disagree with that.



Complainer said:


> - that people in council houses don't make their homes nice


Nobody said that. It was said that they were less likely to do so. I don’t think anyone could disagree with that.



Complainer said:


> - that people on social welfare don't pay tax


 Nobody said that. It was aid that others pay taxes, i.e. income tax. People in corporation estates pay less tax overall than those in private housing estates. I don’t think anyone could disagree with that.




Complainer said:


> Sometimes, I really wonder if people here are living in the same country as I am.


 I don’t think you’re the only one who wonders that.


----------



## Firefly (9 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> Dissapointed to see the usual oul AAM guff and nonsense being promulgated here, e.g.
> 
> - that private homes are not subsidised by the State (anyone heard of mortgage interest relief)
> - that anti-social behaviour only happens in council estates
> ...



1. That's true but it is a small subsidy for which stamp duty etc has in most cases been paid. In any case, most people who have bought and will bought would do so if no mortgage interest relief existed. 

2. Who said that & where ? I said in relation to anti-social behaviour.. "less in estates where everyone owns their own home"

3. I said "Some do, granted, but a disproportionate amount don't" Drive around the coucil estates you mentioned and plenty others and you'll notice the same thing

4. I didn't say that. But as you brought it up...yes they pay tax (e.g. VAT) but only out of what they get for free off the state. So they are net gainers from the state.


----------



## Firefly (9 Mar 2011)

complainer said:


> sometimes, i really wonder if people here are living in the same country as i am.



+1


----------



## truthseeker (9 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> - that private homes are not subsidised by the State (anyone heard of mortgage interest relief)


 
Of course they are, and private individuals receive benefits like childrens allowance - I dont think anyone is disputing that. But in the case of mortgage interest relief, you must have bought the house to begin with (because you have a mortgage), rather than expecting the state to put a roof over your head from word go?



Complainer said:


> - that anti-social behaviour only happens in council estates


 
Rubbish, anti social behaviour happens everywhere, but I think its kind of obvious that its worse in certain state supported areas - you yourself alluded to that with the places you mentioned for me to walk through.



Complainer said:


> - that people in council houses don't make their homes nice


 
Well of course they do - some of them. And of course there are people who own private homes that are tips. But generally speaking, people treat things better if they have had to work hard to get them rather than just being handed them.



Complainer said:


> - that people on social welfare don't pay tax


 
Some tax - not as much tax.



Complainer said:


> Sometimes, I really wonder if people here are living in the same country as I am.


 
Id be interested in visiting the contradictory utopia where you live, a place where people in council houses make their homes nice yet Im invited to walk through particular areas so I can see the not nice accomodations!


----------



## Purple (9 Mar 2011)

Well boys and girls, we now live in a “Rights based Society” so welfare, even if you’ve never worked in your life, is your right. So is medical care and housing. 
That means that it’s ok to just opt out and live on the charity of others... oh, wait, it’s not charity, it’s your right! Nobody should feel guilty about it, nobody should take any flack from hard pressed tax payers who have to foot the bill. If you work hard and do well then you should feel guilty for your success. In some indirect and obscure way you are actually oppressing “the poor”. Therefore it is only right that some of your income should be taken and given to your neighbour who chooses to spend their day watching daytime TV.


----------



## Firefly (9 Mar 2011)

Purple said:


> Well boys and girls, we now live in a “Rights based Society” so welfare, even if you’ve never worked in your life, is your right. So is medical care and housing.
> That means that it’s ok to just opt out and live on the charity of others... oh, wait, it’s not charity, it’s your right! Nobody should feel guilty about it, nobody should take any flack from hard pressed tax payers who have to foot the bill. If you work hard and do well then you should feel guilty for your success. In some indirect and obscure way you are actually oppressing “the poor”. Therefore it is only right that some of your income should be taken and given to your neighbour who chooses to spend their day watching daytime TV.




This is all attainable if the "Do you think money grows on trees" tree could be found.


----------



## truthseeker (9 Mar 2011)

Purple said:


> Well boys and girls, we now live in a “Rights based Society” so welfare, even if you’ve never worked in your life, is your right. So is medical care and housing.


 
And so, it would appear, it is your right, your RIGHT no less, to behave in an anti social manner and break the laws of society, and not only is it your right to do this - but in fact, your behaviour will be rewarded, with a roof over your head, food on the table for you and your family, cash in your pocket for the little luxuries of life, medical care for you and your family, education for the little ones, and guess what - daytime tv!!!

Why work at all?


----------



## shnaek (9 Mar 2011)

truthseeker said:


> And so, it would appear, it is your right, your RIGHT no less, to behave in an anti social manner and break the laws of society, and not only is it your right to do this - but in fact, your behaviour will be rewarded, with a roof over your head, food on the table for you and your family, cash in your pocket for the little luxuries of life, medical care for you and your family, education for the little ones, and guess what - daytime tv!!!
> 
> Why work at all?



Well put. I only just commented on another post that irresponsibility at all levels, along with criminality and laziness are not discouraged in Ireland. In fact, it's the opposite. We must be one of the top western nations when it comes to rewarding irresponsibility. Then we turn around and look to be treated like adults! It'd be laughable if it weren't so disheartening.


----------



## Purple (9 Mar 2011)

horusd said:


> Unless you believe that some people are innately bad, or prone to lawlessness, depravity and violence, a link must be made between deprivation, poverty and social disorder. As part of a thesis a number of yrs ago, I mapped drug addiction & crime in Dublin. No surprise it was highly concentrated in deprived areas. We had an insane social policy vis a vis crime in Ireland. No great compunction is made in housing prisioners @€ 80-90K a yr, but we will not invest much lower amounts in early social intervention, with school meals, with after-school services, with adequate guidence and counselling, with educational support etc. We allow the poor to be ghettoized as well. Is it any wonder at all that we have serious problems with violence and crime?



I agree completely. That's why I am opposed to free 3rd level education. All available resources should be pumped into early education in deprived areas. Allowing people like me to send their kids to 3rd level for free does nothing to encourage people from poor areas to go. The abolition of 3rd level fees was a sop to the middle classes and nothing more. Let’s be clear about this (as Joan Burton is so fond of saying), poor people never paid 3rd level fees. They always got grants as well. The increased costs over the last few years associated with going to 3rd level have acted to increase the barrier for poor people, not reduce it. 

I believe in equality of opportunity and the great leveller is education so in order to make the race fair before it starts we should be doing everything we can to encourage people from deprived backgrounds to stay in education. If a day comes when we have unlimited resources then by all means let people like me send their kids to college for free but 'till that day stop trying to buy us off at the expense of those who need a hand to help themselves.
What we do now is rather than trying to level the field when people are starting off in life we spend vast amounts of money trying to level things up through the rest of their lives.


----------



## horusd (9 Mar 2011)

shnaek said:


> Well put. I only just commented on another post that irresponsibility at all levels, along with criminality and laziness are not discouraged in Ireland. In fact, it's the opposite. We must be one of the top western nations when it comes to rewarding irresponsibility. Then we turn around and look to be treated like adults! It'd be laughable if it weren't so disheartening.


 
People are as much (if not more) products of their environments as their natures. You don't get as much anti-social behaviour in middle class areas for a reason, and it's not to do with the individual, it's to do with the society. If you took kids out of a deprived inner city area and raised them in Foxrock or Howth do you think they will do better? If you do then you must agree that the problem is the social milieu not the person.

Thus the poorer you are the more likely you are to be in prison or classed as irresponsible or perhaps lazy or living on welfare. You can bemoan peoples "irresponsibility" et all all you wish, but it won't solve the problem. The only way to break the cycle of criminality,loutishness, "laziness" etc is to address the root causes; poverty, poor parenting, addictions, lack of educational opportunities and so on. This is less expensive in the long-run too and represents a win win for all.


----------



## horusd (9 Mar 2011)

It's also not a little ironic that the people who did the most damage to the country hailed from it's most privileged ranks, and none so far has spent a day in jail. The OP asked whether society has failed. Well yes it has, but it's a top-down failure.


----------



## WicklowMan (9 Mar 2011)

horusd said:


> People are as much (if not more) products of their environments as their natures. You don't get as much anti-social behaviour in middle class areas for a reason, and it's not to do with the individual, it's to do with the society.


 
Quite agree. When you lump a whole load of people with relatively no money or power in together in an area and then forget about them a sort of perverse psychology takes over. 

Another thing that could be looked at is how the authorities deal with these people. I know generations of the same families who all hate the Gardai. This often stems from someone getting a good hiding and then seeing the colleagues of hot-headed officer all band together to protect them (ie: tell lies). 

It sure doesn't encourage anyone to rise above anything, when they see what you can rise to!


----------



## z107 (9 Mar 2011)

> I agree completely. That's why I am opposed to free 3rd level education. All available resources should be pumped into early education in deprived areas. Allowing people like me to send their kids to 3rd level for free does nothing to encourage people from poor areas to go. The abolition of 3rd level fees was a sop to the middle classes and nothing more.


I believe third level education should be free. It is investment in our future.
I'd rather no dole before no free 3rd level education.

I disagree that's it's a sop to the middle classes. The main thing that encourages people from all walks of life to undertake third level education is parenting and ability. Fees make it so that a barrier is put in the way of poorer people with ability and desire.

People should all have equal opportunities, and then they're on their own... (in an non-nepotistic, non-crony ideal world)

Of course from a control view point, educating the masses is always a bad idea.

(Having re-read your post, it looks like we broadly agree.)


----------



## IsleOfMan (10 Mar 2011)

horusd said:


> Given that there were advanced warnigs of trouble, there seemed to be very few Gardai on the ground.


 
On election day I was passing by the Mosque in Clonskea. The school in the Mosque complex was being used as a polling station. There were about 50 Moslems making a protest about Libya. Screaming and shouting, waving placards, etc  All very loud, frightening and intimidating as people passed bye to vote. There was not one Garda present anywhere near the protestors. I couldn't believe it. Where are the Garda these days?


----------



## Purple (10 Mar 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> I disagree that's it's a sop to the middle classes. The main thing that encourages people from all walks of life to undertake third level education is parenting and ability. Fees make it so that a barrier is put in the way of poorer people with ability and desire.


 But poor people never paid fees so abolishing fees didn’t make any difference to them. All it did was to allocate state resources to the children of the middle classes that could have been allocated to deprived areas. The line that abolishing 3rd level fees helped the poor gain access is a lie. The net result when they were abolished was a explosion in the amount of cobble-locked driveways, double glazes windows and garage conversions in leafy suburbia.
In 2009 the average cost of 3 years in 3rd level was €42’000. That’s without paying fees. There is no way that a low income family or one on welfare will be able to foot that bill. If we are serious about equality of opportunity then, in my opinion, it would be better to provide an income for someone from a family in long term poverty by charging the cobble-lock brigade fees.


----------



## truthseeker (10 Mar 2011)

Purple said:


> In 2009 the average cost of 3 years in 3rd level was €42’000.


 
How is that figure arrived at? Just curious.


----------



## Purple (10 Mar 2011)

truthseeker said:


> How is that figure arrived at? Just curious.



Bank of Ireland Life did a study in 2009. I don't have a link.
Cost to get a child from primary to a degree was €70'000.


----------



## Shawady (10 Mar 2011)

Purple said:


> But poor people never paid fees so abolishing fees didn’t make any difference to them. All it did was to allocate state resources to the children of the middle classes that could have been allocated to deprived areas. The line that abolishing 3rd level fees helped the poor gain access is a lie.


 
Intoduced by a Labour minister.


----------



## Purple (10 Mar 2011)

Shawady said:


> Intoduced by a Labour minister.



Labour know who their supporters are.


----------



## truthseeker (10 Mar 2011)

Purple said:


> Bank of Ireland Life did a study in 2009. I don't have a link.
> Cost to get a child from primary to a degree was €70'000.


 
Interesting. When I went to college my parents didnt make any financial contribution at all. I got the free fees. I had to pay a registration fee but I got a grant of approx 200 Irish pounds per term, and I worked part time (full time during holidays) - so between my work money and my grant I paid for the registration fee, books, materials, travel costs, lunches etc. 

What my parents paid was me living at home. But a lot of 18-22 year olds who dont go to college live at home - they probably hand up 'household money' - as did I during holidays when I worked full time.

So I wonder if you were to subtract the 'normal' cost of having a child live at home during the 18-22 period would you arrive at a much lower actual figure for sending a child to college?


----------



## Complainer (10 Mar 2011)

Isn't AAM great for jumping to conclusions? So we're told that the problems in council housing are down to the people, not the buildings.

I guess it is the people's fault that there is no heating in Rosemount, and that the windows are falling out of the frames, and that the chimney fumes are coming through the walls; http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2009/sep/13/flats-from-hell-the-city-council-forgot/

I guess it is the fault of the people in Dolphin House that "FAECAL COLIFORM levels more than 570-million times the safe level for drinking water have been detected in the sinks of flats in Dolphin House, Dublin." [broken link removed] Perhaps they should stop using their toilets maybe?

We're told that anti-social behaviour is more common in council estates, but no evidence is presented. We're told that people in council estates are less likely to care for their environment, but no evidence is presented.

We're told that criminals will consider their mother's housing needs before committing a crime, but no evidence is presented. Anyone who has ever dealt with a drug addict knows that they would (and probably have) rob from their mother to get a fix, and are quite unlikely to do a cost-benefit analysis on their mother's housing before their next crime.

Wouldn't it be nice if, just once, maybe some of the AAM experts could come up with solutions that actually work in the real world, as opposed working inside the heads of the AAM experts?


----------



## Complainer (10 Mar 2011)

Shawady said:


> Intoduced by a Labour minister.


Indeed - introduced by Labour Minister who covered the cost of the fees by abolishing the tax dodge around covenants that allowed wealthy people to avoid tax - it was a revenue neutral measure. All grants that were in place before the measure continued to be in place after the measure, and these were expanded in later years.


----------



## Purple (10 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> Indeed - introduced by Labour Minister who covered the cost of the fees by abolishing the tax dodge around covenants that allowed wealthy people to avoid tax - it was a revenue neutral measure. All grants that were in place before the measure continued to be in place after the measure, and these were expanded in later years.



Covenants allowed anyone with an income to avoid tax. The suggestion that it was a tax dodge specifically for the wealthy is spurious since it was capped at quite a low level anyway. 
Grant payments were increased in later years, but not by Labour. The increases didn't do much more than stay ahead of inflation. They certainly didn't make a material difference to people from poor areas who were trying to attend college.


----------



## Purple (10 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> Isn't AAM great for jumping to conclusions? So we're told that the problems in council housing are down to the people, not the buildings.
> 
> I guess it is the people's fault that there is no heating in Rosemount, and that the windows are falling out of the frames, and that the chimney fumes are coming through the walls; http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2009/sep/13/flats-from-hell-the-city-council-forgot/
> 
> I guess it is the fault of the people in Dolphin House that "FAECAL COLIFORM levels more than 570-million times the safe level for drinking water have been detected in the sinks of flats in Dolphin House, Dublin." [broken link removed] Perhaps they should stop using their toilets maybe?


I agree that this is disgraceful and should be rectified. Thanks for highlighting these examples of public sector incompetence and inefficiency.




Complainer said:


> We're told that anti-social behaviour is more common in council estates, but no evidence is presented. We're told that people in council estates are less likely to care for their environment, but no evidence is presented.


 Take a walk through a few council estates in West Dublin and then take a walk near your home.  



Complainer said:


> We're told that criminals will consider their mother's housing needs before committing a crime


 I didn’t see that post. Can you point it out?



Complainer said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if, just once, maybe some of the AAM experts could come up with solutions that actually work in the real world, as opposed working inside the heads of the AAM experts?


It would be nice if, for once, you suggested anything constructive. Anything. Just once... or do you think everything’s ok the way it is?


----------



## z107 (10 Mar 2011)

> We're told that anti-social behaviour is more common in council estates, but no evidence is presented. We're told that people in council estates are less likely to care for their environment, but no evidence is presented.


Of course anti-social behaviour is more common in council estates, and it is to do with the people rather than the buildings. I know this because I have eyes and ears. I don't need any studies to tell me the obvious.


----------



## Firefly (10 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if, just once, maybe some of the AAM experts could come up with solutions that actually work in the real world, as opposed working inside the heads of the AAM experts?




It would be nice if, for once, you suggested anything constructive.  Anything. Just once... or do you think everything’s ok the way it is?

Posted for Purple as I know you have this social exclusion thing going on. We're all ears.


----------



## Complainer (15 Mar 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Of course anti-social behaviour is more common in council estates, and it is to do with the people rather than the buildings. I know this because I have eyes and ears. I don't need any studies to tell me the obvious.



Are you God? Unless you are omniscient, I'm really not sure at all how your own 'eyes and ears' can give you a definitive view on this. There are all kinds of estates round the country, at various stages of maturity and development - public and private. They're all different.


----------



## Purple (15 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> Are you God? Unless you are omniscient, I'm really not sure at all how your own 'eyes and ears' can give you a definitive view on this. There are all kinds of estates round the country, at various stages of maturity and development - public and private. They're all different.



There's none as blind as those who will not see.


----------



## Firefly (16 Mar 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Of course anti-social behaviour is more common in council estates, and it is to do with the people rather than the buildings. I know this because I have eyes and ears. I don't need any studies to tell me the obvious.



Even if you wanted you could do your own study pretty easily. Go to daft.ie or myhome.ie and take a look at house prices. Compare similiar size houses in council estates with those in private estates equi-distant to the city centre. Should be fairly obvious to those who actually buy their own homes where they will pay more for.


----------



## Complainer (16 Mar 2011)

Firefly said:


> Even if you wanted you could do your own study pretty easily. Go to daft.ie or myhome.ie and take a look at house prices. Compare similiar size houses in council estates with those in private estates equi-distant to the city centre. Should be fairly obvious to those who actually buy their own homes where they will pay more for.


This reminds me of the man who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Is there a direct relationship between anti-social behaviour and house prices? Perhaps you'd better tell those people I met last month in a very 'nice' (and very expensive) estate off the Sandyford Road who are plagued by anti-social behaviour arising from underage drinking by their neighbour's teenagers.


----------



## Firefly (16 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> This reminds me of the man who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing.
> 
> Is there a direct relationship between anti-social behaviour and house prices? Perhaps you'd better tell those people I met last month in a very 'nice' (and very expensive) estate off the Sandyford Road who are plagued by anti-social behaviour arising from underage drinking by their neighbour's teenagers.



Do you have a link for this?

I'm not (and no-one else is either) saying anti-social behaviour doesn't happen in private estates...of course it does...but I think that there is more of an occurrance in council estates. If you want to name and shame particular estates then how about SouthHill in Limerick? Think I'd take my chances in Sandyford


----------



## Complainer (29 Mar 2011)

There were some interesting comments about St Nathy's House in Churchtown on the front page of this week's Southside People, e.g.

"families with young children forced to leave their accomodation because of health complaints"

"Window frames completely rotten - you can feel a draft through the windows even though the council insualted them'

"I can come up the stairs and there are people going to the toilet" 

"Syringes have been found in the field out there"

Just to put in context those claims of 'nice' social housing.


----------



## Firefly (29 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> There were some interesting comments about St Nathy's House in Churchtown on the front page of this week's Southside People, e.g.
> 
> "families with young children forced to leave their accomodation because of health complaints"
> 
> ...




Is there anything stopping the people who live there:

Putting in new windows (they are getting the accomodation for nothing remember)?
Forming a residents association, campaigning to their local coucillor and contacting the Gardai?

Or must the state provide everything for some people?


----------



## Firefly (29 Mar 2011)

Complainer said:


> There were some interesting comments about St Nathy's House in Churchtown on the front page of this week's Southside People, e.g.
> 
> "families with young children forced to leave their accomodation because of health complaints"
> 
> ...




I believe this was addressed in Purple's first response (2nd sentence) in post 43 also.


----------



## Protocol (29 Mar 2011)

When I was young I was a bit scared to walk through LA housing estates.

To this day, I am wary.

There tends to be more toys just left out in gardens and on the streets.


----------



## Complainer (1 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> Is there anything stopping the people who live there:
> 
> Putting in new windows (they are getting the accomodation for nothing remember)?


Their tenancy agreement - same as most tenants.


Firefly said:


> Forming a residents association, campaigning to their local coucillor and contacting the Gardai?


Why do you assume that they haven't?


----------



## villa 1 (1 Apr 2011)

I live in a brand new housing estate(2/3yrs) and the developer set aside a large portion (20/30%) of the development to social and affordable housing. I have a good friend living in an affordable house in this same estate that he purchased three yrs ago from the council.
He is at his wits end at this stage because of the filth and dirt that is eminating from the social area of the develpment. He wants to move but he'll be in serious negative equity. It has to pointed out that most of these people in the social area of the develpoment(Irish, african, eastern european) have been moved on from other areas of the town and have been very fortunate to move into brand new top of the range houses and all for nothing!! They will not even pay 50/60 euro a year for grass cutting saying that it is the council's job.
What is giong on in this country.
I can't wait for their little darlings to start kicking up!!


----------



## Delboy (1 Apr 2011)

if you get anything for free, it'll be abused more often than not


----------



## Complainer (1 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> they are getting the accomodation for nothing remember)?
> F





Delboy said:


> if you get anything for free, it'll be abused more often than not


No-one gets council housing for free.


----------



## Delboy (1 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> No-one gets council housing for free.



how muc is the norm to be paid....€10 or €15 a week/month?
I see corporation estates/flats in Dublin with small green areas where the concil workers go in to pick up rubbish and cut the grass...I just don't understand how the residents are'nt made do something/anything


----------



## Firefly (4 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> Their tenancy agreement - same as most tenants.
> 
> Why do you assume that they haven't?



That's probably true about the tenacy agreement. Do you think the tenants are exaggerating? If not does this not point to poor provision & maintenance of public housing? What about the Health & Safety of the local authority?

I would hope that the residents haved formed a resident association, campaigned to their local authority and contacted the gardai...can you post the link to the Southside People, as all you posted were random comments (from whom we don't even know)?

Since "No-one gets council housing for free", if it's that bad, perhaps they should vote with their pocket and find alternative accomodation?


----------



## truthseeker (4 Apr 2011)

firefly said:


> since "no-one gets council housing for free", if it's that bad, perhaps they should vote with their pocket and find alternative accomodation?


 
+1


----------



## Complainer (4 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> That's probably true about the tenacy agreement. Do you think the tenants are exaggerating? If not does this not point to poor provision & maintenance of public housing? What about the Health & Safety of the local authority?


You are joking, right? You've read about the folks in Dolphin House with faecal matter coming through the pipes into their flats, right? And the lady in Ballymun who froze to death, right? 



Firefly said:


> I would hope that the residents haved formed a resident association, campaigned to their local authority and contacted the gardai...can you post the link to the Southside People, as all you posted were random comments (from whom we don't even know)?


Yes, and I would hope they've written some stiff letters to  Modom at the Irish Times as well. That will really get things sorted.

I did search for Southside People online at the time that I made the original post and couldn't find it, but feel free to search further yourself. Or drop round and go diving in my recycle bin if you like.


Firefly said:


> Since "No-one gets council housing for free", if it's that bad, perhaps they should vote with their pocket and find alternative accomodation?


Let them eat cake.


----------



## Firefly (4 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> You are joking, right? You've read about the folks in Dolphin House with faecal matter coming through the pipes into their flats, right? And the lady in Ballymun who froze to death, right?



I take it from this that you don't think these people are exaggerating (a view I hold myself) and therefore this is a problem with poor provision & maintenance of public housing



Complainer said:


> Yes, and I would hope they've written some stiff letters to  Modom at the Irish Times as well. That will really get things sorted.



Let me ask you this....you're in this predicament....what would you do?



Complainer said:


> I did search for Southside People online at the time that I made the original post and couldn't find it, but feel free to search further yourself. Or drop round and go diving in my recycle bin if you like.



You were the one who posted random comments from a source that you cannot provide a link for, not me. Until you do who's to say you didn't make them up yourself? By the way, I think they are valid comments but I'd like to see the whole article to see if those complaining actually did anything rather than complain. 



Complainer said:


> Let them eat cake.



Nothing to do with cake, rather how people choose to spend their money.


----------



## Complainer (4 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> I take it from this that you don't think these people are exaggerating (a view I hold myself) and therefore this is a problem with poor provision & maintenance of public housing


Have you ever been in St Nathy's House in Churchtown?



Firefly said:


> You were the one who posted random comments from a source that you cannot provide a link for, not me. Until you do who's to say you didn't make them up yourself? By the way, I think they are valid comments but I'd like to see the whole article to see if those complaining actually did anything rather than complain.


Just to be clear, are you accusing me of making up the quotes that I posted?



Firefly said:


> Nothing to do with cake, rather how people choose to spend their money.


It is everything to do with the Marie-Antoinette like comment, as it assumes that people have the money to spend on getting alternative accomodation.


----------



## Firefly (4 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> Have you ever been in St Nathy's House in Churchtown?



"I agree that this is disgraceful and should be rectified. Thanks for  highlighting these examples of public sector incompetence and  inefficiency" from Purple.

Do you think therefore that this is a result of poor provision and maintenance of local housing?



Complainer said:


> Just to be clear, are you accusing me of making up the quotes that I posted?



Personally I'm not, but it could be argued. What I did say was "*I think they are valid comments* but I'd like to see the whole article to  see if those complaining actually did anything rather than complain." 





Complainer said:


> It is everything to do with the Marie-Antoinette like comment, as it assumes that people have the money to spend on getting alternative accomodation.



I disagree.


I've done my best to answer your questions...so once again...you're in this predicament....what would you do?


----------



## truthseeker (4 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> It is everything to do with the Marie-Antoinette like comment, as it assumes that people have the money to spend on getting alternative accomodation.


 
You were the one who said:



Complainer said:


> No-one gets council housing for free.


 
So if theyre not getting it for free, theyre paying for it right? If theyre paying for it, then why dont they leave and pay for alternative accomodation? Oh wait a minute, they dont have money to spend on alternative accomodation - because theyre getting it for free!


----------



## Complainer (4 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> Do you think therefore that this is a result of poor provision and maintenance of local housing?


I'll take that as a 'No' then - that you haven't been in St Nathy's House, but you still feel qualified to comment on whether the quotes are exaggerated are not. Personally, I'd have thought that you might need some actual knowledge of the situation to make this judgement, but I guess that's just me being picky again.



Firefly said:


> Personally I'm not, but it could be argued. What I did say was "*I think they are valid comments* but I'd like to see the whole article to  see if those complaining actually did anything rather than complain."


OK then, let's wait and see if anyone DOES actually argue that I've made up those comments, and we can deal with that when it happens. Your trust in the press is touching, given that you expect every article to give a full picture and full background to every story. It is interesting to note that you were very quick to assume that the residents had taken no action, though you (yet again) have no actual knowledge of the situation.



Firefly said:


> I've done my best to answer your questions...so once again...you're in this predicament....what would you do?


A multi-pronged approach is usually the best option in these kinds of situations - some of the stuff that you've mentioned would certainly play a part in the solution, but I wouldn't be so foolish as to assume that there are simplistic solutions just round the corner.



truthseeker said:


> So if theyre not getting it for free, theyre paying for it right? If theyre paying for it, then why dont they leave and pay for alternative accomodation? Oh wait a minute, they dont have money to spend on alternative accomodation - because theyre getting it for free!


Or to put your theory into algaebraeic terms;

Council Rent=x
Public Rent=y

therefore you conclude that x=y and Y=0, despite the fact that there are many, many other possible values for y. Why would you assume this, in the light of overwhelming evidence from the real world that public rent is not zero?


----------



## Firefly (4 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> I'll take that as a 'No' then - that you haven't been in St Nathy's House, but you still feel qualified to comment on whether the quotes are exaggerated are not. Personally, I'd have thought that you might need some actual knowledge of the situation to make this judgement, but I guess that's just me being picky again.



Not haven been there I take your word for it...sounds like a dump.

But you still seem incapable of answering this basic question:Why can't you acknoweldge that this is a issue with poor provision and maintenance of public housing?

You said: "Isn't AAM great for jumping to conclusions? So we're told that the problems in council housing are down to the people, not the buildings."

Then you povide examples of poor council housing:

"I'd challenge you to take a little tour of the flats in Rosemount near Dundrum, or St Nathi's House in Churchtown, or Oliver Bond House and see if they meet your definition of 'nice homes'. "

"Rosemount, and that the windows are falling out of the frames, and that the chimney fumes are coming through the walls; http://www.tribune.ie/archive/articl...ouncil-forgot/ "

"Dolphin House that "FAECAL COLIFORM levels more than 570-million times the safe level for drinking water have been detected in the sinks of flats in Dolphin House, Dublin." [broken link removed]  "

"St Nathy's House in Churchtow...the Southside People article:
"families with young children forced to leave their accomodation because of health complaints"
"Window frames completely rotten - you can feel a draft through the windows even though the council insualted them'
"I can come up the stairs and there are people going to the toilet"
"Syringes have been found in the field out there"

[/QUOTE]



Complainer said:


> OK then, let's wait and see if anyone DOES actually argue that I've made up those comments, and we can deal with that when it happens.



I'd prefer if you could provide a link as is so often asked by yourself. As I've said, I actually think those comments are real, but I would just like to see if it was mentioned in the article anywhere if those complaining actaully did anything rather than complain.



Complainer said:


> Your trust in the press is touching



You were the one quoting from an article not me. 



Complainer said:


> Your trust in the press is touching, given that you expect every article to give a full picture and full background to every story. It is interesting to note that you were very quick to assume that the residents had taken no action, though you (yet again) have no actual knowledge of the situation.




I take this point. The residents in this estate may have taken action. A link to the article _may_ have substantiated this. 




Complainer said:


> *A multi-pronged approach *is usually the best option in these kinds of situations - some of the stuff that you've mentioned would certainly play a part in the solution, but I wouldn't be so foolish as to assume that there are simplistic solutions just round the corner.



Sounds a bit touchy-feely...in any case, I'm not asking how this situation should be addressed at a macro level, I asking you a basic question "you're in this predicament....what would you do?".


----------



## Complainer (4 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> Not haven been there I take your word for it...sounds like a dump.
> 
> But you still seem incapable of answering this basic question:Why can't you acknoweldge that this is a issue with poor provision and maintenance of public housing?


This issue is with consistent under-investment and low priority given to funding of social housing by central Govt, in line with many of the opinions that came out on this thread. 



Firefly said:


> I'd prefer if you could provide a link as is so often asked by yourself. As I've said, I actually think those comments are real, but I would just like to see if it was mentioned in the article anywhere if those complaining actaully did anything rather than complain.


Haven't I already explained that they don't seem to have a website?



Firefly said:


> You were the one quoting from an article not me.


Indeed, but I didn't expect the single article in a local paper to be a comprehensive analysis of the background, current status and future options.



Firefly said:


> Sounds a bit touchy-feely...in any case, I'm not asking how this situation should be addressed at a macro level, I asking you a basic question "you're in this predicament....what would you do?".


I've already answered that question.


----------



## Purple (4 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> This issue is with consistent under-investment and low priority given to funding of social housing by central Govt, in line with many of the opinions that came out on this thread.



The classic answer; "It's not the fault of the people living there, it's not the fault of the people charged with managing it, it's not the fault of the people charged with fixing it; it's all down to the gubberment and how those evil politicians won't spend the money on 'dem poor people."

Or

"Give us more of your hard earned money because we can't be bothered spending the money you've already given us properly"


----------



## Purple (4 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> I've already answered that question.



Yep, that's as close to a straight answer as you are going to get Firefly


----------



## Firefly (4 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> I've already answered that question.



You haven't. You provided a wishy-washy, touchy-feely answer at a macro level. 

How about completing the following:

"If I were in that predicament I would..."


----------



## Bronte (4 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> You are joking, right? You've read about the folks in Dolphin House with faecal matter coming through the pipes into their flats, right? And the lady in Ballymun who froze to death, right?


 
I'm finding this thread hard to follow but on those two particular 'estates' I'd like to know the following:

Dolphine House, I think this was the one on the radio at the weekend.  The place sounded atrocious but what I didn't understand from the lady who was describing how bad it was why she continued to live there.  She said that she wanted to live there no matter what.  It looks like one could live a lifetime before it would be sorted out but meantime surely if one had to live in such a place knowing that one would move on.  Is there anything preventing that lady from going to rent an ordinary house or flat bearing in mind that the government will pay most of the rent for a far better place.

If I had to live in such a place I'd be long gone and I'd prefer a tent.  Why would you live in a place that in injurious to the health and well being of your children.  

Lady in Ballymun.  The whole emphasis on this story has been about how the council were negligent because the heating was defective.  But what about self preservation.  I've lived in a house with no heat, you do hot water bottles, you do plug in electric heaters, you do gas heaters, you do extra clothing, you stay with your mother.  You do not do a bath and sleep with no clothes on.  In the best of places the heating can go at any time, it happens, but you have to cope with it.


----------



## shnaek (4 Apr 2011)

Purple said:


> The classic answer; "It's not the fault of the people living there, it's not the fault of the people charged with managing it, it's not the fault of the people charged with fixing it; it's all down to the gubberment and how those evil politicians won't spend the money on 'dem poor people."
> 
> Or
> 
> "Give us more of your hard earned money because we can't be bothered spending the money you've already given us properly"



Exactly.


----------



## Complainer (4 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> You haven't. You provided a wishy-washy, touchy-feely answer at a macro level.
> 
> How about completing the following:
> 
> "If I were in that predicament I would..."


Take it or leave it, my good man. It's a hypothetical situation. I'm not going to stay up late writing an essay for you on a hypothetical situation. Life's too short.

I've given a pretty clear indication of my thinking on the matter.



Bronte said:


> Dolphine House, I think this was the one on the radio at the weekend.  The place sounded atrocious but what I didn't understand from the lady who was describing how bad it was why she continued to live there.  She said that she wanted to live there no matter what.  It looks like one could live a lifetime before it would be sorted out but meantime surely if one had to live in such a place knowing that one would move on.  Is there anything preventing that lady from going to rent an ordinary house or flat bearing in mind that the government will pay most of the rent for a far better place.
> 
> If I had to live in such a place I'd be long gone and I'd prefer a tent.  Why would you live in a place that in injurious to the health and well being of your children.


It's called community spirit.



Bronte said:


> Lady in Ballymun.  The whole emphasis on this story has been about how the council were negligent because the heating was defective.  But what about self preservation.  I've lived in a house with no heat, you do hot water bottles, you do plug in electric heaters, you do gas heaters, you do extra clothing, you stay with your mother.  You do not do a bath and sleep with no clothes on.  In the best of places the heating can go at any time, it happens, but you have to cope with it.


Here's one (of several) possible scenarios. You don't believe it is likely that someone can freeze to death in Dublin today. You prioritise your kids safety, but you are concerned about risks to your few remaining bits of property if you leave your premises unattended. You can't afford a portable heater, and you're in arrears on your ESB bill. You hope that tomorrow will bring something better. As the hypothermia becomes more severe, your thinking becomes more sluggish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothermia#Severe) and you do not respond in a rational way. You might do a bit of Paradoxical undressing, which makes things worse. You die in your sleep.


----------



## Firefly (5 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> Take it or leave it, my good man. It's a hypothetical situation. I'm not going to stay up late writing an essay for you on a hypothetical situation. Life's too short.
> 
> I've given a pretty clear indication of my thinking on the matter.




Ah yes, the old "In defense of hypothetical questions" answer. 

http://www.slate.com/id/2089163/

By labeling a question as "hypothetical," politicians and government  officials feel they are entitled to duck it without looking like they  have something to hide.

Aren't you embarrassed that you're not able to answer a simple question in a few lines? Any rational person in that situation would put their shoulder to the wheel and work out how they can get out of there and better their lot. They'd find out how to get work and not depend on the state who can only provide accomodation of this standard. It may not happen overnight but in 12 months any able bodied person should be able to accomplish this with some will power. 

As per my post 17 - Anyone who is unable to work on medical grounds excluded....their homes should be *very nice*, as long as those "on the sick" don't qualify.


----------



## Firefly (5 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> *It's a hypothetical situation. I'm not going to stay up late writing an essay for you on a hypothetical situation.* Life's too short.



And then....offerring a hypothetical situation for your answer - absolute class, you really should take a bow for this.



Complainer said:


> *Here's one (of several) possible scenarios.* You don't believe it is likely that someone can freeze to death in Dublin today. You prioritise your kids safety, but you are concerned about risks to your few remaining bits of property if you leave your premises unattended. You can't afford a portable heater, and you're in arrears on your ESB bill. You hope that tomorrow will bring something better. As the hypothermia becomes more severe, your thinking becomes more sluggish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothermia#Severe) and you do not respond in a rational way. You might do a bit of Paradoxical undressing, which makes things worse. You die in your sleep.


----------



## Complainer (5 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> Any rational person in that situation would put their shoulder to the wheel and work out how they can get out of there and better their lot. They'd find out how to get work and not depend on the state who can only provide accomodation of this standard. It may not happen overnight but in 12 months any able bodied person should be able to accomplish this with some will power.



OK, so just to make sure I understand you correctly - you are concluding that any able-bodied person in council housing for more than 12 months is not rational - right?

Just curious - do you know many people who live in council housing?



Firefly said:


> As per my post 17 - Anyone who is unable to work on medical grounds excluded....their homes should be *very nice*, as long as those "on the sick" don't qualify.


What is the difference between  'unable to work on medical grounds' and 'on the sick'? What specifically do you mean by 'on the sick'?


----------



## truthseeker (5 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> OK, so just to make sure I understand you correctly - you are concluding that any able-bodied person in council housing for more than 12 months is not rational - right?


 
Thats not what I understood from it - I understood it to mean any able bodied person living in atrocious conditions in council housing should be able to get the shoulder to the wheel and better their lot. Obviously if the housing is nice - why would they bother?

The community spirit comment is rubbish - are you seriously saying that people would prefer to endanger their children in the name of community spirit?


----------



## Firefly (5 Apr 2011)

truthseeker said:


> Thats not what I understood from it - I understood it to mean any able bodied person living in atrocious conditions in council housing should be able to get the shoulder to the wheel and better their lot.



Thank you


----------



## Firefly (5 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> OK, so just to make sure I understand you correctly - you are concluding that any able-bodied person in council housing for more than 12 months is not rational - right?



Truthseeker got to this before me.



Complainer said:


> Just curious - do you know many people who live in council housing?



Good question. My own parents started out in social housing (before I was born). I have an aunt & uncle in social housing and 4 first cousins . I know another couple in the 60s friends of my parent's friends - the husband has stated quite clearly that he had no interest in going to work and was happy with his lot. He lives in a decent-enough free house and walks his dogs every day.
[/QUOTE]



Complainer said:


> What is the difference between  'unable to work on medical grounds' and 'on the sick'? What specifically do you mean by 'on the sick'?



Almost had me there but April the 1st was last Friday.


----------



## csirl (5 Apr 2011)

> Originally Posted by *Complainer* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1155786#post1155786
> _What is the difference between 'unable to work on medical grounds' and 'on the sick'? What specifically do you mean by 'on the sick'?_


 
I know someone who is from one of the well known 'deprived' areas - she worked her way out and has a good job. However, she has a close relative who is 'on the sick'. This fellow has diabetes. The day he was diagnosed, the entire family went out celebrating as the diagnosis qualified him to go on the sick, so he would never need to look for work again and will get whatever benefits/housing he needs. His sympthoms are no worse than those of the thousands of diabetics who work in this country - he's no complications or real limitations and is physically active.


----------



## Firefly (5 Apr 2011)

csirl said:


> I know someone who is from one of the well known 'deprived' areas - she worked her way out and has a good job. However, she has a close relative who is 'on the sick'. This fellow has diabetes. The day he was diagnosed, the entire family went out celebrating as the diagnosis qualified him to go on the sick, so he would never need to look for work again and will get whatever benefits/housing he needs. His sympthoms are no worse than those of the thousands of diabetics who work in this country - he's no complications or real limitations and is physically active.



Anecdotal evidence...tut tut...don't you know that'll be thrown out of court


----------



## csirl (5 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> Anecdotal evidence...tut tut...don't you know that'll be thrown out of court


 
No, I've actually met the guy in question and he's told me this himself........so ok with rules of hearsay.


----------



## Complainer (5 Apr 2011)

csirl said:


> I know someone who is from one of the well known 'deprived' areas - she worked her way out and has a good job. However, she has a close relative who is 'on the sick'. This fellow has diabetes. The day he was diagnosed, the entire family went out celebrating as the diagnosis qualified him to go on the sick, so he would never need to look for work again and will get whatever benefits/housing he needs. His sympthoms are no worse than those of the thousands of diabetics who work in this country - he's no complications or real limitations and is physically active.



I take these stories with a pinch of salt, like the 'cars/hairdressing/pets for immigrants' stories. Diabetes on its own is generally not enough to qualify for invalidity pension. Have a look at this appeals case, showing the kinds of impacts that are required to qualify http://www.socialwelfareappeals.ie/pubs/cases/sickness_invp1.html

If he is defrauding the system, then you should have reported him.



truthseeker said:


> Thats not what I understood from it - I understood it to mean any able bodied person living in atrocious conditions in council housing should be able to get the shoulder to the wheel and better their lot.


So why do you think that anyone ends up in long term social housing?



truthseeker said:


> The community spirit comment is rubbish - are you seriously saying that people would prefer to endanger their children in the name of community spirit?


It may seem strange to you, but some people are prepared to work to improve the conditions of their whole community, rather than just looking after their own back.


----------



## truthseeker (5 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> So why do you think that anyone ends up in long term social housing?


 
Could be a myriad of reasons. We were specificially talking about able bodied people and atrocious conditions. In that particular case its laziness.



Complainer said:


> It may seem strange to you, but some people are prepared to work to improve the conditions of their whole community, rather than just looking after their own back.


 
Its not just their own backs though is it? Its their kids backs. You think its ok to try to improve the conditions of the whole community and in doing so put your own health and your childrens health at risk? To me thats just irresponsible, stupid and misguided.


----------



## Firefly (5 Apr 2011)

truthseeker said:


> Its not just their own backs though is it? Its their kids backs. You think its ok to try to improve the conditions of the whole community and in doing so put your own health and your childrens health at risk? To me thats just irresponsible, stupid and misguided.



Anti-social behaviour can & does occur in private estates. But, time and time again the most violent crimes, as per the OP, occur in certain social housing estates. Any responsible parent IMO (whose children's welfare and upbringing is their key concern) would find a way out of this long before their children got wrapped up in this. A child's behaviour is ultimately the responsibility of the parents. Any able-bodied adult staying in this situation is making a choice for which they should bear the consequences


----------



## Bronte (6 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> .
> 
> Dolphin House
> 
> ...


 
In relation to Dolphine House you actually think that people stay there with their kids getting sicker and sicker due to community spirit?  Is that not negligence by the parents.  

In relation to Ballymun.  Surely one's own life and a risk of freezing to death should be more of a priority than one's property.  In any case one could remove any valuables for the duration of the cold spell.  Also there was apparently limitless amounts of hot water so one could have made hot water bottles from that.  Not saying this is the situation in this tragic case but the story makes no sense to me.  How come other people didn't die in the flats if conditions were so severe.


----------



## Complainer (6 Apr 2011)

Bronte said:


> How come other people didn't die in the flats if conditions were so severe.


I believe she was the last person left in that tower, which is why the heating had been turned off. We'll probably hear more about this case today, as it goes back to the Coroner's Court.

I'll come back in more detail on community spirit later, if I get a chance.


----------

