1 in 4 social houses refused. Homeless crisis on arse.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Isn't that infuriating! If the memories are so precious let them earn money to buy the house, their nostalgia isn't more important than another family being homeless. They should t have a choice. Circumstances change? Out you go

PeterParker957

djPSB wrote: »

What is an acceptable level of homelessness?

The blame for homelessness does not 100% lie with the government. There has to be some personal accountability there also.

SSsshhhhh there's to be none of that talk now!!

Everyone knows Enda Kenny personally went round impregnating all them single mother and every last man jack of them deserves a forever home paid for by da gubbernmint!

pjohnson

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Isn't that infuriating! If the memories are so precious let them earn money to buy the house, their nostalgia isn't more important than another family being homeless. They should t have a choice. Circumstances change? Out you go

Aye we should just shotgun them. No choice. Mein Fuhrer.

Wheeliebin30

tomwaterford wrote: »

These having huge homeless amounts makes it ok for ireland,how??


Simply put ireland supposedly rich and letting people die of cold in the streets,(and it will happen if we get a cold winter) is not and can never be right,?


Why you think because Germany and Sweden have homeless figures higher than ireland, makes this acceptable is something I can't fathom?

I don't really care about rest of the world only ireland?

Is that Johnathan corrie who froze on the streets?

Who sold 2 houses his family bought him and refused accomodation the night he died?

Yep that's the Gubberments fault alright.

NIMAN

Those who die on the streets have chosen to sleep there.

There's a bed for everyone who wants one, that is a fact that is often overlooked.


If you decide you want to sleep rough, what can the authorities do about it?

tomwaterford

djPSB wrote: »

What is an acceptable level of homelessness?
.

Zero?

Find it hard to believe people think anything above this is acceptable tbh


There's no reason ireland can't be the best country in the world

Gatling

tomwaterford wrote: »

Zero?

Find it hard to believe people think anything above this is acceptable tbh

Unfortunately it's never going to zero ,there will always be people living on the streets

pjohnson

tomwaterford wrote: »

Zero?

Find it hard to believe people think anything above this is acceptable tbh

If they dont pay the taxes they dont deserve a house.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

pjohnson wrote: »

Aye we should just shotgun them. No choice. Mein Fuhrer.

Would you agree likening families who are being moved to appropriate accommodation (i.e. A one bedroom flat as opposed to a 3 bed house) to millions of slaughtered Jews is very insulting and in fact trivialises the worst atrocity the world has ever seen? There's certainly persecution in the world but expecting one person to live in a one bed property is not it. Have a little respect.

BillyBobBS

Maybe we should just send the homeless off to the gas chambers, oh and since this is boards the poor, those in social housing and single mum's also. Scroungers the lot of them.

PeterParker957

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Would you agree likening families who are being moved to appropriate accommodation (i.e. A one bedroom flat as opposed to a 3 bed house) to millions of slaughtered Jews is very insulting and in fact trivialises the worst atrocity the world has ever seen? There's certainly persecution in the world but expecting one person to live in a one bed property is not it. Have a little respect.

"We're going to ask you to move in 3-6 months to a property in the next road. It has a communal garden and you will pay less rent"

Not exactly the start of Schindler's List is it now ?

PeterParker957

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Maybe we should just send the homeless off to the gas chambers, oh and since this is boards the poor, those in social housing and single mum's also. Scroungers the lot of them.

Oh dear.

tomwaterford

Gatling wrote: »

Unfortunately it's never going to zero ,there will always be people living on the streets

This is true....but the minute people want to put forward an argument that we should aim for an acceptable level of people being fcuked out amd homeless is a dark for humanity tbh

VinLieger

tomwaterford wrote: »

Zero?

Find it hard to believe people think anything above this is acceptable tbh

Whats an acceptable level of unemployment? Zero of course but that's similarly impossible so we have gotten to the accepted figure of about 4-5% is considered as close to zero as is possible.

You are ignoring due to your own blinkered views that there are people who no matter the services available have made the choice to live on the streets, Jonathan Corrie unfortunately was one of these. Do we all think we can do better? of course! but the concept of zero homeless people is simply impossible.

Also you are just moving the goalsposts for your arguments at this stage, the reasons people are posting the figures as you well know is to prove your claim wrong that our homelessness issue is the worst in the world or something 3rd world countries would be embarrassed about.

pjohnson

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Would you agree likening families who are being moved to appropriate accommodation (i.e. A one bedroom flat as opposed to a 3 bed house) to millions of slaughtered Jews is very insulting and in fact trivialises the worst atrocity the world has ever seen? There's certainly persecution in the world but expecting one person to live in a one bed property is not it. Have a little respect.

You advocate a persons forceful eviction from their home? The jews never volunteered to move out of their homes. Why so touchy?

pjohnson

PeterParker957 wrote: »

"We're going to ask you to move in 3-6 months to a property in the next road. It has a communal garden and you will pay less rent"

Not exactly the start of Schindler's List is it now ?

Lexi wasnt asking. She wanted compulsary evictions.

VinLieger

Was there really a reason to Godwin this thread this early?

PeterParker957

pjohnson wrote: »

You advocate a persons forceful eviction from their home? The jews never volunteered to move out of their homes. Why so touchy?

It's not "their home" though. It's a well needed - at the time - social support.

It's a scarce resource and now needed for others who are in the situation they were some time ago.

PeterParker957

pjohnson wrote: »

Lexi wasnt asking. She wanted compulsary evictions.

And I'd say there's a vast difference it being asked - and yes, perhaps MADE - to leave one's comfortable house for another comfortable property and being dragged out, beaten and killed in gas chamber.

But apparently not.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

tomwaterford wrote: »

This is true....but the minute people want to put forward an argument that we should aim for an acceptable level of people being fcuked out amd homeless is a dark for humanity tbh

There's different types of homelessness.
Someone may genuinely be homeless, due to abusive relationships or situations, or money problems.
Someone might be living with their mam and claiming they're homeless because they want their own house.
You'll have women continuing to have children while homeless, the fathers never seem to be in the photo taken in the hotel, so why can't they stay with him rather than wait for her to provide him with a free roof over his head?
Then you have the people with their own cross to bear, mental illness or drug addictions or even both.

What they need to do is look at why that person is homeless and tackle that problem too. Is it addiction or mental illness? A house won't fix that, start with the problem, help them with addiction, improve mental health care.

Single mothers that keep having babies despite having no partner or job? Free coil or sterilisation if they want it. After all, the local pet charity in my county gives out free vouchers to people who can't afford to get their pets neutered so they can have their animal neutered so that organisations aren't overburdened with feral and neglected off spring.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

pjohnson wrote: »

Lexi wasnt asking. She wanted compulsary evictions.

It's not eviction, you're being moved to a more suitable home, as another family needs the one you're occupying. Afterall, if it was the other way around they'd want to be moved to a larger house so why not move accordingly? They don't own the house and it shouldn't be a forever home when there's actual families sleeping in one hotel room. I don't advocate kicking them out just moving them to a more suitable property

batman_oh

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Maybe we should just send the homeless off to the gas chambers, oh and since this is boards the poor, those in social housing and single mum's also. Scroungers the lot of them.

Awesome point bro, it's basically identical to Nazi Germany!

morrga

RobbingBandit wrote: »

I was homeless myself 4 years ago for 8 months cost me my place in university I'm still dealing with the health implications to this day so shut the hell up about there being no crisis until it has effected you or yours shut the hell up.

One example doesn't constitute a crisis nor constitute a mirror image of all homeless cases.

Less of the drama. Sorry to hear about your situation but its one case in a basket of thousands.

pjohnson

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Single mothers that keep having babies despite having no partner or job? Free coil or sterilisation if they want it. After all, the local pet charity in my county gives out free vouchers to people who can't afford to get their pets neutered so they can have their animal neutered so that organisations aren't overburdened with feral and neglected off spring.

Yes forced sterilisation next this is the Utopia.

1) "Free" coil? Nein that will be you funding it taxpayer.
2) What if this forced sterilized creature finds a partner or job? Nein childrens for them even if they rise to being a mighty taxpayer.

PeterParker957

pjohnson wrote: »

Yes forced sterilisation next this is the Utopia.

1) "Free" coil? Nein that will be you funding it taxpayer.
2) What if this forced sterilized creature finds a partner or job? Nein childrens for them even if they rise to being a mighty taxpayer.

When did we taxpayers become the enemy ???

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Can you read? "Sterilisation if they want it".

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

PeterParker957 wrote: »

When did we taxpayers become the enemy ???

Cutting the Christmas bonus and being the reason their 6 year old had to get a Samsung instead of an iPhone

pjohnson

PeterParker957 wrote: »

When did we taxpayers become the enemy ???

When they or some of them decided they are better than others. Helping people worse off? Disgraceful. Let then eat cake right?

suicide_circus

If we want to build more social housing we need to

a. Make savings elsewhere. Que wailing, wringing of hands, joe duffy inundated with misery porn (how does dat make u feeeeel?).

b. Increase in taxes. Que the squeezed middle clutching their pearls.

We probably need a bit of both. Certainly no time to be cutting income taxes and awarding "pay" increases via social welfare.

PeterParker957

pjohnson wrote: »

When they or some of them decided they are better than others. Helping people worse off? Disgraceful. Let then eat cake right?

If the Budget tomorrow increases my tax and USC etc by 5% and it is guaranteed 100% ringfenced to pay for people genuinely worse off and who have no other option than to be on benefits - fair enough.

If I have to endure a four hour commute daily that costs 4,000 euro for the privilege so I can do a 40+ hour week just so people can sit round on their backside and get a better lifestyle than I do - not fair.

hytrogen

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

Where did the idea of not having to work and pay your way in society come from?

THE BREADLINE!!!!!

PeterParker957

suicide_circus wrote: »

If we want to build more social housing we need to

a. Make savings elsewhere. Que wailing, wringing of hands, joe duffy inundated with misery porn (how does dat make u feeeeel?).

b. Increase in taxes. Que the squeezed middle clutching their pearls.

We probably need a bit of both. Certainly no time to be cutting income taxes and awarding "pay" increases via social welfare.

I have no pearls. Must I get them in order to be p**sed off I get screwed over ???? I have to wait three weeks to pay day to go to the GP but little Jacinta in Dalkey can go as many times as mummy takes her, as my taxes pay for the free un-means tested GP care for under 6s.

pjohnson

PeterParker957 wrote: »

If the Budget tomorrow increases my tax and USC etc by 5% and it is guaranteed 100% ringfenced to pay for people genuinely worse off and who have no other option than to be on benefits - fair enough.

If I have to endure a four hour commute daily that costs 4,000 euro for the privilege so I can do a 40+ hour week just so people can sit round on their backside and get a better lifestyle than I do - not fair.

Yes but most of the "I PAY TAXES" moaners decide that everyone is in the second catergory. Wait if OAP's get a bonus. Tax brigade loose their minds.

PeterParker957

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Cutting the Christmas bonus and being the reason their 6 year old had to get a Samsung instead of an iPhone

They're right LexieOnRale - I'm like Mengele.

PeterParker957

pjohnson wrote: »

Yes but most of the "I PAY TAXES" moaners decide that everyone is in the second catergory. Wait if OAP's get a bonus. Tax brigade loose their minds.

No chance, OAPs deserve a tenner a week rise and the full resumption of Xmas bonus.

However they never do that - it's always all social welfare together.

And most of them have never paid in. OAPs have in spades.

pjohnson

PeterParker957 wrote: »

No chance, OAPs deserve a tenner a week rise and the full resumption of Xmas bonus.

However they never do that - it's always all social welfare together.

And most of them have never paid in. OAPs have in spades.

Well I must say you're actually more sensible than most of the TAX whingers. I remember last year people screeching OAP's didnt deserve it since they "dont work" or "dont have our commute expenses".

PeterParker957

pjohnson wrote: »

Well I must say you're actually more sensible than most of the TAX whingers. I remember last year people screeching OAP's didnt deserve it since they "dont work" or "dont have our commute expenses".

Good lord no!

I saw hoe hard my dad worked for many many years - they are at the top of the pile! Or bloody well should be!!!

VinLieger

pjohnson wrote: »

Yes forced sterilisation next this is the Utopia.

1) "Free" coil? Nein that will be you funding it taxpayer.
2) What if this forced sterilized creature finds a partner or job? Nein childrens for them even if they rise to being a mighty taxpayer.

Yes cus the removable coil is a permanent option that doesn't have a max time span of about 3 years and can't be removed whenever they want..........

You need to do your research before posting such uninformed garbage
Also calling it forced sterilisation is hyperbolic and makes your argument look even more pathetic than your uninformed waffle

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I think in the interest of fairness and for the better of society anyone between the ages of 18-65 should have income tax and USC applied to their income, no matter where than income is from, be it from working or from social welfare. If people on the dole want the same benefits as those working let them have a taste of the responsibilities too. More money in the pot, win win

hytrogen

PeterParker957 wrote:

Good lord no!
I saw hoe hard my dad worked for many many years - they are at the top of the pile! Or bloody well should be!!!

But didn't your parents die in an airplane crash?
That said Uncle Ben might have left something more for Aunt May too..

PeterParker957

hytrogen wrote: »

But didn't your parents die in an airplane crash?
That said Uncle Ben might have left something more for Aunt May too..

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

alan1963 wrote: »

Wouldn't this save most welfare claimants a walk?

What an ignorant view you hold.

dadad231 wrote: »

Yeah and it doesn't help that lots of these wasters on the waiting list are expecting their 5th child and continue to live irresponsibly.

Some of us have to work and pay for our lifestyles, this is unsustainable this hand out mentality.

I used to think this too, but when I see so many working couples foregoing parenthood, my mind has changed. Somebody has to sustain population growth, where they intend it or not.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Seriously simple little maths you don't seem capable of.

Why have you such a chip on your shoulder?

rustynutz

Conner Uneven Spacesuit wrote: »

What an ignorant view you hold.



I used to think this too, but when I see so many working couples foregoing parenthood, my mind has changed. Somebody has to sustain population growth, where they intend it or not.



Why have you such a chip on your shoulder?

Great, all we need is more kids born into families of parents who never worked, so well have more scroungers to support for their entire lives, the likelihood of a kid reared with unemployed parents ever joining the workforce are fairly slim, I cant see this being a great solution to our aging population problem

PeterParker957

rustynutz wrote: »

Great, all we need is more kids born into families of parents who never worked, so well have more scroungers to support for their entire lives, the likelihood of a kid reared with unemployed parents ever joining the workforce are fairly slim, I cant see this being a great solution to our aging population problem

100% agreed.

People keep saying "we need children, they'll pay your pension one day".

Really ??? I doubt that.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

rustynutz wrote: »

Great, all we need is more kids born into families of parents who never worked, so well have more scroungers to support for their entire lives, the likelihood of a kid reared with unemployed parents ever joining the workforce are fairly slim, I cant see this being a great solution to our aging population problem

Sensationalist generalization. Good job there

joe stodge

I personally know someone who refused a home because there were too many shores in the back garden, there was 4.

this was after making him and his family homeless by moving into his mothers house to move up the list quicker.

PeterParker957

PeterParker957 wrote: »

100% agreed.

People keep saying "we need children, they'll pay your pension one day".

Really ??? I doubt that.

They'll only pay your pension if they work.

PeterParker957

Deleted User wrote: »

They'll only pay your pension if they work.

Agreed. And most won't. If mammy and a succession of uncles plus granny and whoever granddad was didn't work - why would little Shakira ?

Rezident

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

The issue of homeless accommodation being turned down isn't as black and white as people like to think it is. Personally I have no time for people who'll turn it down because the garden doesn't face south or something. But if you're being offered something two doors down from the local drug dealer or in an obviously rough area, why would you take it?

Because you are homeless, supposedly, and it is a free house.

boardsuser1

Someone mentioned this earlier on,about the offer of a house refused due to a trampoline not fitting in the garden?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/family-snub-house-with-no-room-for-trampoline-29204683.html