Liveline thread 12/08/16 to date

Itssoeasy

Joe: Angelina, good afternoon to you.
Angelina: how are you Joe ?
Joe: I'm good I'm good. Angelina whoy have decided to divorce brad ?
Angelina: brad ? Joe I'm calling about the direct provision.
Joe: back after deeze.

snubbleste

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I'll be reading dat after the show so to speak.

Have ye read it yet? Also from here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056996498&page=647

ButtersSuki

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Asylum seekers are not entitled to Child Benefit. They do, however, receive a payment of €15.60 per week per child.

If you think anyone is turning a profit out of €140 per month, let alone a mere €15.60 per week per child, I have to genuinely ask whether you are aware of the costs of raising a child? From that €15.60, a person living in Direct Provision is obliged for all of the child's needs aside from shelter and the main meals. They have to try to pay for their own children's school expenses and clothing, just like everybody else.

In some cases, the child in question is an Irish citizen. This is a pretty appalling state of affairs, and I do think it's something this Society will be condemned for in coming years, and we deserve that.

If someone spends 8 years in Direct Provision, and therefore barred from working, is it any wonder that when they are finally naturalised, they are not particularly employable?

We are shooting ourselves in the foot with this ludicrous policy of prohibiting access to work. Anyone can come to this country on a student visa, enrol in a cheap English-language course, and can automatically work part-time. Why can we not allow asylum seekers to work, even part-time, after a year has elapsed in their application.

Our policy is a large part of the reason these individuals often end up unemployed.



Well, yes. They do get it wrong. The Court have fired several shots across the bows, telling the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to get its act together.

We have one of the worst records worldwide for refusing asylum claims, compared to other countries per head of population. The population of Norway is similar to ours, yet it grants twenty times the amount of asylum applications we do. Norway is widely recognized as a template for asylum and integration.

But it's not only that we're not as good as Norway. Backwaters like Jordan, Burundi and Rwanda put us to shame, in their willingness to grant asylum.

So yes, they do get it wrong, and have been repeatedly criticized by the courts for their inconsistency and irrational decisions. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal is comprised of part-time decision-makers, with no specialist training, who are typically party hacks

Felix didn't argue your points however; his view certainly appeared to be that "they got it wrong" when the result wasn't in his favour and that (again) appeared to be the only criteria he was applying to the decision. As a later caller pointed out, some just appeal and appeal until they get the result they want, others "disappear" from the system (a caller was in a relationship with one such man today).

Felix (open to correction on that) was the caller who claimed his country was too dangerous for him, yet left his wife and child there - nice. He came across as a complete chancer and a Spoofer tbh.

The Norwegian example is unfair as they are immeasurably richer than us as a nation.

The others you list, fair enough BUT Joe once again presented the topic today as if all of these asylum seekers were 100% legit. I simply don't believe that to be factual myself.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the system is appalling, however I do have to ask do you think the system is being abused? Do you think we have false claimants? And if so, what do you think should happen to them?

TheHomeService

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Asylum seekers are not entitled to Child Benefit. They do, however, receive a payment of €15.60 per week per child.

If you think anyone is turning a profit out of €140 per month, let alone a mere €15.60 per week per child, I have to genuinely ask whether you are aware of the costs of raising a child? From that €15.60, a person living in Direct Provision is obliged for all of the child's needs aside from shelter and the main meals. They have to try to pay for their own children's school expenses and clothing, just like everybody else.

In some cases, the child in question is an Irish citizen. This is a pretty appalling state of affairs, and I do think it's something this Society will be condemned for in coming years, and we deserve that.

If someone spends 8 years in Direct Provision, and therefore barred from working, is it any wonder that when they are finally naturalised, they are not particularly employable?

We are shooting ourselves in the foot with this ludicrous policy of prohibiting access to work. Anyone can come to this country on a student visa, enrol in a cheap English-language course, and can automatically work part-time. Why can we not allow asylum seekers to work, even part-time, after a year has elapsed in their application.

Our policy is a large part of the reason these individuals often end up unemployed.



Well, yes. They do get it wrong. The Court have fired several shots across the bows, telling the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to get its act together.

We have one of the worst records worldwide for refusing asylum claims, compared to other countries per head of population. The population of Norway is similar to ours, yet it grants twenty times the amount of asylum applications we do. Norway is widely recognized as a template for asylum and integration.

But it's not only that we're not as good as Norway. Backwaters like Jordan, Burundi and Rwanda put us to shame, in their willingness to grant asylum.

So yes, they do get it wrong, and have been repeatedly criticized by the courts for their inconsistency and irrational decisions. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal is comprised of part-time decision-makers, with no specialist training, who are typically party hacks

Absolutely, Direct Provision is appalling. Yes, people should be given dignity and allowed work. But the Tribunal, flawed as it may well be, must be respected. Cases should be heard swiftly, and an appeal should be allowed. However, dragging out the process by years is not acceptable, and surely must add to the stress of those impacted.

ButtersSuki

Won't be in today folks, "enjoy" your last Lahv Lahn before tomorrow's Funny Fryday on a Turrsday so to speak.

sligojoek

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Won't be in today folks, "enjoy" your last Lahv Lahn before tomorrow's Funny Fryday on a Turrsday so to speak.

If the last few days are aythig to go by I wo't be aroud either. I tured off before 2.00.

HeidiHeidi

Haven't been listening in lately (see, I AM cured ), but have been keeping up via all of you lot.

What odds for this to feature today?

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/09/21/local-like-you/

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0921/818071-kilmuckridge-wexford-garda/

It has Joe and Da Lahvline written all over it.

Atlantic Dawn

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Haven't been listening in lately (see, I AM cured ), but have been keeping up via all of you lot.

What odds for this to feature today?

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/09/21/local-like-you/

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0921/818071-kilmuckridge-wexford-garda/

It has Joe and Da Lahvline written all over it.

Yes it would be ideal for him, he will chat about the poooooor poooooor small busineses struggling and won't at all ask any of the hard questions like did they borrow way too much money that it would never have been possible to ever repay or were they just greedy and lost at the casino of business so to speak.

sligojoek

More direct provision, by the looks of things.
And if that doesn't cheer us up we have violent autistic children.

somesoldiers

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Yes it would be ideal for him, he will chat about the poooooor poooooor small busineses struggling and won't at all ask any of the hard questions like did they borrow way too much money that it would never have been possible to ever repay or were they just greedy and lost at the casino of business so to speak.

maybe he will give them all a boost with Fiver Friday? we haven't had one in a while presumably because the recession is over and we are all rich again- woo hoo, back to wiping me ar$e with fifties!!

SEPT 23 1989

sound quality is sh1te from the farmers thing

CarrickMcJoe

sligojoek wrote: »

More direct provision, by the looks of things.
And if that doesn't cheer us up we have violent autistic children.

More all right but with a councillor who complained about These People having to travel through many different countries to get here. He's on lave for slaughter.

Roger_007

I'd completely forgotten that it is World Alzheimer's Day.;)

sligojoek

CarrickMcJoe wrote: »

More all right but with a councillor who complained about These People having to travel through many different countries to get here. He's on lave for slaughter.

I think someone listed them here yesterday.

I might listen in just to hear that. He must be a councillor who hasn't taken PR advice. Guaranteed he's not FF.

snubbleste

How did you get to Ireland, caller?

Atlantic Dawn

A refugee from South Korea, wtf?

snubbleste

Let's talk about suicide

somesoldiers

I'm depressed on day #3 of this sh1te

FrKurtFahrt

Nooooooo, not more of this!!!

Oops69

Has joe had any of the mangers of these centres on to give a right to reply ?

Itssoeasy

Jesus direct provision. Not that I don't feel for the people as direct provision sounds horrible but what is joes angle here ?

Fujitsu10

Oops69 wrote: »

Has joe had any of the mangers of these centres on to give a right to reply ?

Is that you Atlantic ;)

TheHomeService

The Ghoul is at it again.

Digging for detail that is both irrelevant and insensitive.

I still find it hard to imagine asylum seekers from South Korea, by the way.

Atlantic Dawn

Hi Joe so to speak.

snubbleste

Joe reading the thread

A Shaved Duck?

Day 3 and Joe is yet to ask a relevant question of any kind..

Itssoeasy

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

A refugee from South Korea, wtf?

Yeah South Korea doesn't strike me as a country that refugees have.

PeterTheNinth

Oops69 wrote: »

Has joe had any of the mangers of these centres on to give a right to reply ?

Ah here, that's not how the show works at all.

Roger_007

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Jesus direct provision. Not that I don't feel for the people as direct provision sounds horrible but what is joes angle here ?

Sh1t stirrer?

Oops69

TheHomeService wrote: »

The Ghoul is at it again.

Digging for detail that is both irrelevant and insensitive.

I still find it hard to imagine asylum seekers from South Korea, by the way.

It's a dangerous place , Samsungs going on fire and all that