Breakdown of law and order


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.
 
Complainer said:
- that private homes are not subsidised by the State (anyone heard of mortgage interest relief)
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Some tax - not as much tax.

Complainer said:
Sometimes, I really wonder if people here are living in the same country as I am.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.)
 
horusd said:
Given that there were advanced warnigs of trouble, there seemed to be very few Gardai on the ground.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 

Intoduced by a Labour minister.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register