Breakdown of law and order

T

The_Banker

Registered User
Messages
342
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?
​
 
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.
 
The_Banker said:
I was completely shocked by this story. Surely society has failed if this can happen?
Click to expand...
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.
 
+ 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
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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'.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The_Banker said:
I was completely shocked by this story. Surely society has failed if this can happen?​
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 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)
 

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.
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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'.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Complainer said:
Dissapointed to see the usual oul AAM guff and nonsense being promulgated here, e.g.
Click to expand...
Lets break this down so;

Complainer said:
- that private homes are not subsidised by the State (anyone heard of mortgage interest relief)
Click to expand...
Nobody said otherwise.

Complainer said:
- that anti-social behaviour only happens in council estates
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you’re the only one who wonders that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register