Irish Times - save me your sanctimonious claptrap

Shakespeare's Sister

Robroy36 wrote: »

...

I don't think anyone believes asylum-seekers should be living in luxury (which is no doubt the strawman that will get trotted out) - basic, clean and comfortable is sufficient. But the conditions can be very poor and cramped, and nobody without the power to change this should be living in such conditions, particularly when they have children.

Annasopra

anncoates wrote: »

So in summary, refugees living in miserable conditions have it good because they don't have to pay taxes or get blown up by the IDF.

And "outraged in Donnybrook" doesnt want to pay for it. The indignity of paying his taxes in order to throw them a few breadcrumbs

Geuze

90% of these asylum-seekers are bogus.

The Minister has said so, confirming what we all know.

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/PR07000171


It is very unfair to keep people here for years and years going through a legal process.

They should not be allowed past the airport / port, and should be turned around within 24hrs.

Geuze

Magaggie wrote: »

I don't think anyone believes asylum-seekers should be living in luxury (which is no doubt the strawman that will get trotted out) - basic, clean and comfortable is sufficient. But the conditions can be very poor and cramped, and nobody without the power to change this should be living in such conditions, particularly when they have children.

They are free to leave the country if they are not happy with the conditions.

Nodin

Geuze wrote: »

90% of these asylum-seekers are bogus.

The Minister has said so, confirming what we all know.
.............

"The Minister" has not been the minister for many years now and that article is 9 years old. We currently have one of the lowest acceptance rates in Western Europe.

Nodin

Geuze wrote: »

They are free to leave the country if they are not happy with the conditions.

Your concern for your fellows is touching.

Shakespeare's Sister

Geuze wrote: »

They are free to leave the country if they are not happy with the conditions.

And go where?
The state, even for its own reputation, shouldn't provide squalor type conditions.

feargale

Robroy36 wrote: »

This morning I was left trembling with rage by the Marxists in the Irish Times.

Some interesting points here. But is there a soviet in Westmoreland Street? Who are these Marxists? Name them and shame them. Better still, bring in the special branch to deal with them. No point in understating the case!

conorh91

feargale wrote: »

Some interesting points here. But is there a soviet in Westmoreland Street? Who are these Marxists? Name them and shame them. Better still, bring in the special branch to deal with them. No point in understating the case!

In fairness, Marxism is a sufficiently vague term as to be capable of upholding the hypothesis that some of the Irish Times journalists are Marxists.

Many would agree that Vincent Browne is a Marxist for example. Fintan O'Toole may be one.

cloud493

The reds are everywhere.

selfstarter

Robroy36 wrote: »

I am talking about this weekends "expose" on Direct Provision.

Who do they think they are?

I work hard all week, long hours, get taxed to the hilt to partially pay for an ever diminishing health service, cockeyed politicians and civil servants and an absolutely absurd welfare state. I could go on about impending water charges, house hold taxes and the myriad of other stealth taxes but I'll leave it there.

The above is not fine. It is not just and at times it makes me tremble with rage.

This morning I was left trembling with rage by the Marxists in the Irish Times. Not only should I be squeezed dry Monday to Friday by the irrepressible state, Saturday morning is time for emotional bombardment and an exercise in self shaming by the Irish Times.

They feel that not only should we fund our indigenous lay abouts to the extent that any job paying under 40k a year is simply not worth considering for the head of a family but now we must open our borders to the rest of the world to encamp here a leech off the state.

Let me be perfectly clear. I do not care about Direct Provision or the people "trapped" in this system. A bit of perspective: they are better off in Mosney than they are being shelled by the IDF or beheaded by ISIS. Give them a choice, a plane back to where they came from or Direct provision, I know which answer I'd be betting my savings on.

Next week perhaps do a "Weekender" on how to pay as little tax as possible and avoid self-shaming leftist propaganda from arts graduates who have never lived a day in the real world.

I Take the Metro Herald.

It wasn't me!

Also, aren't aslum seekers prevented from leaving the country until their situation is determined?

conorh91

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Also, aren't aslum seekers prevented from leaving the country until their situation is determined?

No, not prevented, but their claim is forfeit.

If they are going abroad on holiday, or returning to their home country, it somewhat undermines their claim of seeking unavoidable international protection.

porsche959

conorh91 wrote: »

Many would agree that Vincent Browne is a Marxist for example. Fintan O'Toole may be one.

Vincent Browne is a man who applauded Mugabe's ethnic cleansing of white farmers in Zimbabwe. That's on the record.

As for Fintan O'Toole, I could make a better man out of a banana.

crockholm

Nodin wrote: »

Your concern for your fellows is touching.

He says without irony while simultaneously thanking a post wishing alzheimers disease on a newspaper columnist.

AnonoBoy

The direct provision situation in this country is a joke.

Of course you have the usual morons who think that if you raise issues with it then you are just advocating we have a big immigration free for all.

That's not the case at all.

If anyone can honestly look at the situations people are living in and not think that the system needs to be improved then I would seriously question their humanity.

It's a horrible limbo that some families are spending years existing in.

Cases need to be heard so people can either start their lives in Ireland properly or move on.

conorh91

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Cases need to be heard so people can either start their lives in Ireland properly or move on.

What does this have to do with the RIA or the direct provision system generally?

It's a procedural issue. It concerns ORAC, the RAT, the Superior Courts and the Minister for Justice. \

Direct Provision is a perfectly acceptable system in its own right. The legal system which processes applications, judicial reviews, and ministerial discretion is the imperfect bit.

If the US Supreme Court can lay down strict rules on applications and oral hearings (30 minutes maximum), I do not see why the Protection System in this country cannot.

feargale

porsche959 wrote: »

Vincent Browne is a man who applauded Mugabe's ethnic cleansing of white farmers in Zimbabwe. That's on the record.

I'm not aware of what V.B. said about this. But while noone can deny that Mugabe is a brutal tyrant, there are two sides to the land question in Zimbabwe. In 1971 5% of the population, virtually all white, owned 70% of the best land, much of it having been forcibly taken from the African population less than two generations before. Did Browne explicitly approve of ethnic cleansing, using that term, or is that your interpretation?

Foxhound38

Robroy36 wrote: »

I am talking about this weekends "expose" on Direct Provision.

Who do they think they are?

I work hard all week, long hours, get taxed to the hilt to partially pay for an ever diminishing health service, cockeyed politicians and civil servants and an absolutely absurd welfare state. I could go on about impending water charges, house hold taxes and the myriad of other stealth taxes but I'll leave it there.

The above is not fine. It is not just and at times it makes me tremble with rage.

This morning I was left trembling with rage by the Marxists in the Irish Times. Not only should I be squeezed dry Monday to Friday by the irrepressible state, Saturday morning is time for emotional bombardment and an exercise in self shaming by the Irish Times.

They feel that not only should we fund our indigenous lay abouts to the extent that any job paying under 40k a year is simply not worth considering for the head of a family but now we must open our borders to the rest of the world to encamp here a leech off the state.

Let me be perfectly clear. I do not care about Direct Provision or the people "trapped" in this system. A bit of perspective: they are better off in Mosney than they are being shelled by the IDF or beheaded by ISIS. Give them a choice, a plane back to where they came from or Direct provision, I know which answer I'd be betting my savings on.

Next week perhaps do a "Weekender" on how to pay as little tax as possible and avoid self-shaming leftist propaganda from arts graduates who have never lived a day in the real world.

I bet you're great craic at parties

Also...

This morning I was left trembling with rage by the Marxists in the Irish Times

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Try reading a bit more about the meaning of a term before throwing it into a sentence

AnonoBoy

conorh91 wrote: »

What does this have to do with the RIA or the direct provision system generally?

It's a procedural issue. It concerns ORAC, the RAT, the Superior Courts and the Minister for Justice. \

Direct Provision is a perfectly acceptable system in its own right. The legal system which processes applications, judicial reviews, and ministerial discretion is the imperfect bit.

Direct Provision is fine for a short stay. But not for someone to spend years in.

So yes, if you want to be pedantic - direct provision is fine - it's the legal system dealing with applications that needs to dealt with.

We're making the same point.

Cases need to be heard quickly.

conorh91

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So yes, if you want to be pedantic - direct provision is fine - it's the legal system dealing with applications that needs to dealt with.

We're making the same point.

We are but I'm willing to bet most people in opposition to direct provision are not.

Most people see direct provison as the problem. They don't understand the problem. I haven't read the Irish Times article yet so I'm not going to pre-judge it, but it's a common misunderstanding.

I fully agree it's unethical to leave people in direct provision for years. That's a procedural issue for the Minister for Justice and the Courts Service. Direct provision in its own right is perfectly legitimate as an idea.

Macavity.

Tax and welfare system in this country is a joke, in fairness. Soon as I get my degree I'm getting out of this socialist cesspit.

conorh91

Macavity. wrote: »

Tax and welfare system in this country is a joke, in fairness. Soon as I get my degree I'm getting out of this socialist cesspit.

Q.1 How much did your degree cost you?
Q.2 How much did it costs the State?
Q.3 If there was no net benefit to you, why not leave before taking your degree?

Macavity.

conorh91 wrote: »

Q.1 How much did your degree cost you?
Q.2 How much did it costs the State?
Q.3 If there was no net benefit to you, why not leave before taking your degree?

I was going to mention that in my post actually, it's incredibly ironic.

conorh91

Macavity. wrote: »

I was going to mention that in my post actually, it's incredibly ironic.

Sure. Are you a net beneficiary of the system you criticise, or not?

Macavity.

conorh91 wrote: »

Sure. Are you a net beneficiary of the system you criticise, or not?

That's hardly any of your business now, is it?

Shakespeare's Sister

Providing social supports (which, yes I know, can be abused) is not = a socialist state.

h2005

Macavity. wrote: »

That's hardly any of your business now, is it?

That would be a yes so.

conorh91

Macavity. wrote: »

That's hardly any of your business now, is it?

Thought so.

jimgoose

They could have it a lot worse. They could be under the care of the Stabsfeldweben at the HSE.

Macavity.

Magaggie wrote: »

Providing social supports (which, yes I know, can be abused) is not = a socialist state.

Not a socialist state, but fiscally certainly centre left.

jimgoose

Macavity. wrote: »

That's hardly any of your business now, is it?

Yes it is. Those things are expensive, and there should be a little more back from them than plenty dumb-ass cheek.

Macavity.

h2005 wrote: »

That would be a yes so.

Certainly not a net beneficiary if you must know. I'm sure you will twist that into something else.

conorh91

Macavity. wrote: »

Not a socialist state, but fiscally certainly centre left.

You said socialist. "Socialist cesspit" to be exact.

You're now withdrawing that, yes?

Un Croissant

Macavity. wrote: »

Certainly not a net beneficiary if you must know. I'm sure you will twist that into something else.

Why bother with it so?

h2005

Macavity. wrote: »

Certainly not a net beneficiary if you must know. I'm sure you will twist that into something else.

How'd the Leaving go?

Macavity.

conorh91 wrote: »

You said socialist. "Socialist cesspit" to be exact.

You're now withdrawing that, yes?

Hyperbole on my part, if you want I'll retract that comment, if that little victory means so much to you.

We do however have a left wing tax system, which I intend in having no part in.

Macavity.

h2005 wrote: »

How'd the Leaving go?

I did my leaving last year, I got well over 500 points. Thanks for asking.

conorh91

Macavity. wrote: »

We do however have a left wing tax system, which I intend in having no part in.

Bye.

jimgoose

Macavity. wrote: »

Hyperbole on my part, if you want I'll retract that comment, if that little victory means so much to you.

We do however have a left wing tax system, which I intend in having no part in.

I'm sure we'll manage.

h2005

Macavity. wrote: »

I did my leaving last year, I got well over 500 points. Thanks for asking.

So you sat your leaving last year and you're not a net beneficiary? Did you get educated outside the state?

Un Croissant

Macavity. wrote: »

I did my leaving last year, I got well over 500 points. Thanks for asking.

Et les femmes, très bien, oui?

Halloween Jack

Macavity. wrote: »

Hyperbole on my part, if you want I'll retract that comment, if that little victory means so much to you.

We do however have a left wing tax system, which I intend in having no part in.

Yet happy to enjoy the services it provides, such as education.....

What is it about the tax system that you think is so left wing and onerous?

AnonoBoy

Macavity. wrote: »

We do however have a left wing tax system, which I intend in having no part in.

And where are you heading for may I ask?

I only ask because there's a lot of rabble-rabble-not-my-taxes-rabble-rabble types that I'd like to be able to direct to the anti-socialist paradise you're headed for.

Billy86

First Marxists...

then Socialists...

and finally...

COMMIENAZIS!!

Not that uninformed hyperbole is dumbing down the general public discourse or anything. No, no, no, of course not.

Macavity.

Un Croissant wrote: »

Et les femmes, très bien, oui?

Ca plane pour moi!

Halloween Jack wrote: »

What is it about the tax system that you think is so left wing and onerous?

I dislike the progressive tax system this country has, think it's unfair. One third of the government's expenditure goes towards social welfare which I also feel is too high, especially considering the amount of welfare fraud that goes on.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

And where are you heading for may I ask?

I don't know Anono, the world is my oyster.

Anyway, I realise boards is very centre left when it comes to economic policy, and these threads can turn ugly, with people getting personal (which we have already veered into, unfortunately) so I will bow out of this one.

jimgoose wrote: »

I'm sure we'll manage.

I'll send a postcard. :rolleyes:

Halloween Jack

Tax systems are supposed to be progressive. Unless you actually want regressive taxes that take more from those who can afford least?

I would agree that 30% of the budget on social welfare is too high, but we are coming out (hopefully) of an almighty recession, which saw a huge jump in unemployment, it should reduce naturally if the economy keeps growing.

h2005

h2005 wrote: »

So you sat your leaving last year and you're not a net beneficiary? Did you get educated outside the state?

Any answer?

Frank Lee Midere

The problem with Ireland's tax system is that it lies massively disproportionately on workers, rather than property, capital, inheritance, and other forms of income. The trustifarians often end up writing for the IT.

Understandably this pisses off the people on 40k.

Frank Lee Midere

Macavity. wrote: »

Certainly not a net beneficiary if you must know. I'm sure you will twist that into something else.

How can you not be a net beneficiary unless you are a nature student? Your schooling and third level education was massively subsidised.