Who speaks for the taxpayer?

You truly are a joker.
The quote of mine that you highlight, nowhere do I try to "justify" the refusal of non-payment of rent.

Maybe read it again, that's not what I said.

My comment merely points to on-going realities of life that may be contributory factors for the arrears of LA authority rents and the complexities of finding suitable accommodation for homeless families.

And that's how I took it. My question simply related to how you thought homeless people refusing offers of housing was connected to arrears rates / refusal to pay.

Are you denying that factors other than a straight refusal to pay are not contributing to the arrears?

I think it's clear that I haven't commented one way or the other.
 
And that's how I took it. My question simply related to how you thought homeless people refusing offers of housing was connected to arrears rates / refusal to pay.

And I answered that question. Why do keep repeating it? Is it because what you really said was

'you brought it up in the context of trying to justify why LA tenants might be refusing to pay rent.'

I think it's clear that I haven't commented one way or the other.

How convenient that is for you.

But you have commented, you have accused me of diversion, 'rabbit holes' and have misrepresented my views, without offering a comment of your own on the points raised in the topic.
Your arrogance is palpable.
 
Last edited:
So you now agree that a tenant cannot legitimately refuse to pay their rent because a property may require renovations


I acknowledged your point as being in fact correct from 4 pages back


Last Tuesday to be precise! And at least half a dozen times since!

I always wondered what the sound of a large - but - very - very - slow - penny dropping would sound like. Now I know.


I still have no idea therefore what point you are trying to make on this thread,

The fact that you are incapable of understanding the housing crisis and any of the complexities within comes as no surprise!
 
Last edited:
I think that's the crux of the matter; the rest of us just aren't as smart as you. How could we be, otherwise we'd all be socialists, right?
I suspect In Ireland it is the Capitalist gone wrong you need to watch there are no Socialist in Ireland worth talking about only Capitalist ripping off other not so smart Capitalist or smart people with no cop on,
 
Last edited:
How convenient that is for you.

It was actually by design rather than convenience.

But you have commented, you have accused me of diversion, 'rabbit holes' and have misrepresented my views, without offering a comment of your own on the points raised in the topic.

I'm far from the only one who accuses you of that here and in other threads. Just because I haven't offered my own opinion on the subject matter does not preclude me from pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Indeed, it might only serve as a diversion from the original point I made.

Your arrogance is palpable.

I wouldn't call it arrogance, you may actually be the first person ever to accuse me of that. I'd call it pedantry if anything, I've a tendency to go down that road in threads like this.
 
I'm far from the only one who accuses you of that here and in other threads

Thats true, but accusing is one thing, backing it up with facts is another.

Take a look at my post last Sunday (page 10). I was re-acting to BB post that touched on another topic "Is the State competing against homebuyers?".
I agreed with that sentiment.
I then went on (without quoting or disagreeing with anyone) to make what I think to be a reasonable observation about housing and homeless crisis in other capital and major cities of the world ( I back this up with media reports).
In my view it boils down to an economic policy that has, almost exclusively, outsourced the provision of housing to the market driven private sector.

The immediate reaction to my post was to quote it, but not to address anything substantive in the point I made, but to divert it back onto proposals of evicting social houses tenants on the basis of their employment status and the number of vacant bedrooms in the property.
These proposals are futile, in my opinion.
I have asked a series of simple questions that have gone unanswered and pointed out obvious contradictions (for instance, prioritizing low-income households for social housing near where they work, but only building social housing outside congested areas).

For this I get accused of diversion and or 'rabbit holes'.

Im quite happy for anyone to point out the flaws in my substantive point that it is economic policies that are driving the housing crisis.

But the diversion, deflection lies elsewhere and is recorded.

As for pointing out the 'flaws' in my arguements, I did make a mistake in writing about the "legitimate refusal to pay rent".
That was, correctly pointed out to me as flawed. Within my very next two posts I acknowledged the legal requirement to continue to pay rent. I subsequently repeated on half a dozen occassions thereafter that those who can pay, but refuse to pay, should face eviction.
Three days later, and still I was being accused of saying something different! For that I get accused of diversion and deflection!


Just because I haven't offered my own opinion on the subject matter does not preclude me from pointing out the flaws in your arguments

But you haven't pointed out any flaws in my argument. By your own admission "you haven't commented one way or another".
All you have done is accuse me of having a flawed arguement, but have failed to substantiate that accusation.
Instead, not only did I answer directly the question you put to me, I exposed your false impression that I was

trying to justify why LA tennnts might be refusing to pay rent.
 
But you haven't pointed out any flaws in my argument. By your admission "you haven't commented one way or another".

Ah, what about pointing out that homeless people refusing housing offers has no bearing on LA rent arrears?
 
Ah, what about pointing out that homeless people refusing housing offers has no bearing on LA rent arrears?

Yes, I agree. As I said in my direct answer to you - homeless people refusing housing offers has no bearing on LA rent arrears.
Why do you keep repeating what has already been answered, directly?

If you are still interpreting my quote (and accepting that in the discourse of forums such as this, interpretation can often be a broad brush) as meaning that I was trying to justify why LA might be refusing to pay rent, I have gone on further to explain that

My comment merely points to on-going realities of life that may be contributory factors for the arrears of LA authority rents and the complexities of finding suitable accommodation for homeless families.

To which you then replied

And that's how I took it.

Yet, you persist with repeating questions, in similar fashion to other posters, that I have already answered directly.
That is what I would call digging a 'rabbit-hole'.
 
Yet, you persist with repeating questions, in similar fashion to other posters, that I have already answered directly.
That is what I would call digging a 'rabbit-hole'.

I'm not repeating questions, I'm just saying that was the only point I was making as you keep trying to drag me on other tangents.
 
You can't just answer the question then?


I ask because you brought it up in the context of trying to justify why LA tennnts might be refusing to pay rent.

Considering my very last post contains details of the numerous occasions where I say the complete opposite, how did you deduce that I try to justify refusal of rent payment?

Well, what I really said was 'you brought it up in the context of trying to justify why LA tenants might be refusing to pay rent.'

My comment merely points to on-going realities of life that may be contributory factors for the arrears of LA authority rents and the complexities of finding suitable accommodation for homeless families.

And that's how I took it. My question simply related to how you thought homeless people refusing offers of housing was connected to arrears rates / refusal to pay.

And I answered that question

Ah, what about pointing out that homeless people refusing housing offers has no bearing on LA rent arrears?

I'm not repeating questions

Rabbit hole.
 
What's interesting from that article is that so many families would rather stay in a hotel or B&B than go into private rental accommodation. That tells me that the Local Authority Housing sector is far more favourable than the private rental sector. Why is the State providing better housing packages (taking location, cost and security of tenure into account) than is available to the majority of working families who rent?
In fairness to the author he nails is bias to the mast early on with the "Both aimed to give Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy a clearer picture (read: political cover)" comment. He tugs the emotional strings with his "Will someone PLEASE think about the children!" framing of the issue and then uses the statistics very selectively to further his position. All fair enough but it hardly lives up to the title of the article.
 
I would interpret the article somewhat differently.
I cannot see the political bias as the author is both critical of the Minister and the Opposition.
And if it were true that the State is providing better housing packages than the private rental sector then probably best that private landlords who charge market prices but provide standards less favourable than LA move out of the market altogether.

This is the general jist of the article;

First off, it is worth noting that homelessness is not an issue that can be fully evaluated using facts and figures. Each case involves a unique set of circumstances. Reducing people in vulnerable circumstances to a number demeans their situation.

God forbid, in a issue as crucial to sustaining a civil society, the plight of children be considered.

Behind each number there is a face - in 3,689 cases it is currently a child's face, which in itself paints a vivid picture. Government agencies love to crunch numbers. There are office blocks of civil servants who spend their days writing reports and memos which reduce people to facts and figures.
 
Last edited:
if it were true that the State is providing better housing packages than the private rental sector then probably best that private landlords who charge market prices but provide standards less favourable than LA move out of the market altogether.
Do you think it is fundamentally fair that the people who work and pay income taxes at a sufficientkly high level to be deemed capable of renting their own homes should have their taxes spent providing rental accomodation at more favourable T's and C's to people who don't work/work as part or pay less tax? I'm all for a social safety net but not one suspended above those who provide it.

First off, it is worth noting that homelessness is not an issue that can be fully evaluated using facts and figures. Each case involves a unique set of circumstances. Reducing people in vulnerable circumstances to a number demeans their situation.
We ignore facts as our peril; emotion is no way to set government policy.

God forbid, in a issue as crucial to sustaining a civil society, the plight of children be considered.
Of course it should be considered but it should be considered in a considered way.

Behind each number there is a face - in 3,689 cases it is currently a child's face, which in itself paints a vivid picture.
See that's just meaningless emotive clap-trap. It's the hand-wringing left wing equivalent of the Daily Mail nonsense about being overrun by immigrants.
 

No I don't.
But you have made an assumption from the text of the article

Local Authority Housing sector is far more favourable than the private rental sector

and turned it into fact.
All I'm saying is if that is true, then that represents to me nothing more than an absolute failure in the private rental market.

If the state can deliver better housing at more affordable rates (which it can, as it is not depending on the cost of that building that property to be repaid within 30-35yrs, instead it can stretch the cost over generations) then those private landlords fleecing their tenants with extortionate rates for lesser quality accommodation should be pushed out of the market.

We ignore facts as our peril; emotion is no way to set government policy.

Nobody is saying to ignore the facts, the opposite in fact. However, the facts and figures are insufficient by themselves.

See that's just meaningless emotive clap-trap. It's the hand-wringing left wing equivalent of the Daily Mail nonsense about being overrun by immigrants

It is emotive to some extent, and should be, it helps drive those who can and are willing to find solutions to do so.
It is only clap-trap if it is false (such as headlines of being over-run by immigrants).
If there are 3,689 children in homeless emergency accommodation then that is simply a fact. We ignore facts at our peril.
 
If there are 3,689 children in homeless emergency accommodation then that is simply a fact. We ignore facts at our peril.
We do indeed. Maybe if the State provided social housing of the same level as provided in the private sector we wouldn't have all those people on the housing wasting lists.
 
Who knows? Its a complex issue for sure.
It is indeed but we've one of the best educated workforces in the world and amongst the best education system (just ask a teacher, they'll tell you) and we have absolutely brilliant, dedicated and hard working Civil and Public Servants (just ask one, they'll tell you) so, given that as a species we can land a spaceship on an asteroid, I'm sure that all those brilliant minds can improve the current system without spending any more money.