oughterard people - see OP for Mod warning 29/09/19

Boggles

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Thought this was common knowledge by now (depending on exact wording to nitpick at e.g. new, families).

Basic maths isn't nit picking.

The Dublin Region Homeless Executive says 21% of the new families presenting as homeless last year were non-EU citizens, with 67% Irish and 12% from other EU countries.

That is completely different to what was claimed.

Which was.

enricoh wrote: »

.
1 in 5 in dublin homeless list is non eu now,

So no it's not common knowledge primarily because it is not true.

4068ac1elhodqr

alastair wrote: »

You understand that ‘new family families presenting as homeless in Dublin’ is only a subset of ‘Dublin homeless’?

You undertand 21% is a huge number, a year on year increase, and a worrying trend in the face of the looming brexit?


You undertand also, housing is a 'slight bit of a issue' at the moment, and will indeed be for some considerable amount of time to come?


Ah sure, be grand like.

alastair

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

You undertand 21% is a huge number, a year on year increase, and a worrying trend in the face of the looming brexit?


You undertand also, housing is a 'slight bit of a issue' at the moment, and will indeed be for some considerable amount of time to come?


Ah sure, be grand like.

You understand that a significant percentage of a small percentage, might not be anywhere near that first percentage value?

You also understand that a year does not make for a trend. Loads of Syrian refugees last year, very few this year. Not a trend.

4068ac1elhodqr

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

hers is a confusing story and i was trying to make sense of it.
https://www.thejournal.ie/ellie-kisyombe-direct-provision-dublin-4619870-May2019/

Agree, confusing and convoluted story.

The headline extraction of: "Correcting the chronology of her backstory"


Could well translate in more colloquial terminology as: "was telling porkies before" and now trying to make it sound not as bad.

alastair

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Agree, confusing and convoluted story.

The headline extraction of: "Correcting the chronology of her backstory"


Could well translate in more colloquial terminology as: "was telling porkies before" and now trying to make it sound not as bad.

You could equally state the same for your claims.

Topgear on Dave

"telling porkies"

Holy jaysus Accumulator, your not allowed think that, never mind say it out loud.

4068ac1elhodqr

alastair wrote: »

You understand that a significant percentage of a small percentage, might not be anywhere near that first percentage value?

You undertand you used the term 'might', so you are just speculating.
Whereas the actual data shows 21% of new families presenting as homeless in Dublin aren't even from the EU. This is up from last year, and the year before that (sounds a bit like a trend).

Likely that was what the other poster was focusing on, but of course you got into nitpicking (as expected).

alastair wrote: »

You also understand that a year does not make for a trend. Loads of Syrian refugees last year, very few this year. Not a trend.

Would you expect to see a sudden increase next year, and for them to suddenly re-appear in the top5 list? Who knows for sure, not you nor me.

Thus it's equally as likely there will just be the same folks from the other (non war-torn) countries again with their previous 93% average rejection rates (not deemed as genuine cases: illegal economic migrants).

Boggles

alastair

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

You undertand you used the term 'might', so you are speculating.

I’m not. It isn't.

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Whereas the actual data shows 21% of new families presenting as homeless in Dublin aren't even from the EU. This is up from last year, and the year before that.
Likely that was what the other poster was focusing on, but of course you got into nitpicking (as expected).

The other poster made an incorrect claim unsupported by the facts.

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Would you expect to see a sudden increase next year, and for them to suddenly re-appear in the top5 list? Who knows for sure, not you nor me.
Thus it's equally as likely there will just be the same folks from the other (non war-torn) countries again with their 93% average rejection rates (not deemed as genuine cases i.e. illegal economic migrants).

You do get that literally hundreds of successful asylum claimants are not from war zones? And that perfectly valid claims are rejected on the basis of not meeting asylum criteria? But the point stands - you can judge nothing from year-to-year changes. They’re not ‘trends’. Oh, and the rejection rate last year, excluding Syrian applicants was 80%, not 93%.

4068ac1elhodqr

alastair wrote: »

...And that perfectly valid claims are rejected on the basis of not meeting asylum criteria? .

Not meeting criteria to be be considered valid, suggests they're considered invalid, hello?
Do you live in some parallel quantum universe whereby a cake is a tractor, and cats are flying eagles?

alastair wrote: »

you can judge nothing from year-to-year changes. They’re not ‘trends’.

(Consistent) year on year patterns, is usually suggestive of a trend occuring. See question above incase you're reading this in another type of reality.

alastair wrote: »

Oh, and the rejection rate last year, excluding Syrian applicants was 80%, not 93%.

Oh, the all important top5 (excluding Syrians) average rejection % rate last year, is in all reality^ 93%. Add up the other 4 big % numbers, then, yes you guessed it, divide by 4. (Maths).

Eric Cartman

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Not meeting criteria to be be considered valid, suggests they're considered invalid, hello?
Do you live in some parallel quantum universe whereby a cake is a tractor, and cats are flying eagles?


(Consistent) year on year patterns, is usually suggestive of a trend occuring. See question above incase you're reading this in another type of reality.



Oh, the all important top5 (excluding Syrians) average rejection % rate last year, is in all reality^ 93%. Add up the other 4 big % numbers, then, yes you guessed it, divide by 4. (Maths).

syrians adds to 101% so firstly they fudged their own stats, secondly, there is absolutely not a chance in hell 99% of any group are genuine asylum seekers, this shows either the screening process is lacking or more likely a blind eye is intentionally being turned.

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

You undertand you used the term 'might', so you are just speculating.
Whereas the actual data shows 21% of new families presenting as homeless in Dublin aren't even from the EU. This is up from last year, and the year before that (sounds a bit like a trend).

Likely that was what the other poster was focusing on, but of course you got into nitpicking (as expected).


Would you expect to see a sudden increase next year, and for them to suddenly re-appear in the top5 list? Who knows for sure, not you nor me.

Thus it's equally as likely there will just be the same folks from the other (non war-torn) countries again with their previous 93% average rejection rates (not deemed as genuine cases: illegal economic migrants).

The poster clearly wasn't nitpicking. He pulled someone up on completely misinterpreting clear information. 21% of new claimants is clearly not 21% of all claimants. Less shoddy manipulation of facts please.

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Not meeting criteria to be be considered valid, suggests they're considered invalid, hello?
Do you live in some parallel quantum universe whereby a cake is a tractor, and cats are flying eagles?


(Consistent) year on year patterns, is usually suggestive of a trend occuring. See question above incase you're reading this in another type of reality.



Oh, the all important top5 (excluding Syrians) average rejection % rate last year, is in all reality^ 93%. Add up the other 4 big % numbers, then, yes you guessed it, divide by 4. (Maths).

Not all important but only in your head. Total number of applications and rejections is the important figure, not what suits your refugee-bashing agenda.

4068ac1elhodqr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not all important but only in your head. Total number of applications and rejections is the important figure, not what suits your refugee-bashing agenda.

Actually (genuine) refugee-welcoming, and skilled migrants (from anywhere) very welcome indeed, as is generally the case everywhere, one would have thought.

But as for illegal economic migrants (in the very high percentile) posing as refugees (and taking their much needed places), was simply asking the occasional question E.g. 93% average rejection rates for 4/5 of the top countries last year, is this not an oddity?

Not to mention recent cases of sham marriges and document fraud to obtain taxis (operation vantage) etc.

To which your only response is some bitter name bashing/calling.
That's some classy and transparent agenda you've got going on there: silence any discussion.

4068ac1elhodqr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not all important but only in your head. Total number of applications and rejections is the important figure, not what suits your refugee-bashing agenda.

So the figure of 93% should be ignored and silenced, fine I guess???

Actually, you're the only real refugee-basher, by not even questioning the 93% figure, and by falsely calling what is invalid, as valid.

Think of all the genuine cases, that had their places stolen by the 93%.
A shameful agenda you have, likely you're at some fiscal benefit or with a vested interest in such centres.
Some folks would do anything to get rich!

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Actually (genuine) refugee-welcoming, and skilled migrants (from anywhere) very welcome indeed, as is generally the case everywhere, one would have thought.

But as for illegal economic migrants (in the very high percentile) posing as refugees (and taking their much needed places), was simply asking the occasional question E.g. 93% average rejection rates for 4/5 of the top countries last year, is this not an oddity?

Not to mention recent cases of sham marriges and document fraud to obtain taxis (operation vantage) etc.

To which your only response is some bitter name bashing/calling.
That's some classy and transparent agenda you've got going on there: silence any discussion.

Cherry picking. Another poster could use the 1/5 remainder to show an utterly different outcome or two out of the top ten if it suited his/her agenda.

Best to stick to the overall figure to get the clearest picture. No massaging of figures.

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

So the figure of 93% should be ignored and silenced, fine I guess???

Actually, you're the only real refugee-basher, by not even questioning the 93% figure, and by falsely calling what is invalid, as valid.

Think of all the genuine cases, that had their places stolen by the 93%.
A shameful agenda you have, likely you're at some fiscal benefit or with a vested interest in such centres.
Some folks would do anything to get rich!

Yes, it's a cherry-picked and distorted figure. As per the last post, look at the full figures not the ones that appeal to you.

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

So the figure of 93% should be ignored and silenced, fine I guess???

Actually, you're the only real refugee-basher, by not even questioning the 93% figure, and by falsely calling what is invalid, as valid.

Think of all the genuine cases, that had their places stolen by the 93%.
A shameful agenda you have, likely you're at some fiscal benefit or with a vested interest in such centres.
Some folks would do anything to get rich!

Examples? Stats? Or just pseudo-perturbation on the part of those who couldn't give a monkey's about refugees?

4068ac1elhodqr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Cherry picking. Another poster could use the 1/5 remainder to show an utterly different outcome or two out of the top ten if it suited his/her agenda.

Best to stick to the overall figure to get the clearest picture. No massaging of figures.

Looks like only you, are trying to massage and cherrypick the figures, you want to highlight two of the top 10? From some 'top ten list' doesn't publically exisit, only the top 5 was published.

I've questioned 4/5 top countries (including the very top two) of the entire of last year, to which you want to ignore/overlook this 93% average rate of invalid applications. Even call them valid when deemed invalid.
Better still take a look at the last few months, Syria isn't even featuring on the top5, no war-torn country is.

Still, maybe you're making some nice revenue from the whole situation, so it's best that no one asks any questions, as you'lll respond with childish, invalid name calling to suit your agenda.

Gatling

Of the many rejected for asylum how many are still living here and being supported despite having no right to live here legally

enricoh

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not all important but only in your head. Total number of applications and rejections is the important figure, not what suits your refugee-bashing agenda.

Total number of deportations is the important number, its pitiful, hence the leave to remain spoofers

Wibbs

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Not all important but only in your head. Total number of applications and rejections is the important figure, not what suits your refugee-bashing agenda.

Except the rejection rates and acceptance rates from different quarters seem to show who the real refugees actually are. Unless you think the folks tasked to make judgements on the refugee status of people are refugee bashers?

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Looks like only you, are trying to massage and cherrypick the figures, you want to highlight two of the top 10? From some 'top ten list' doesn't publically exisit, only the top 5 was published.

I've questioned 4/5 top countries (including the very top two) of the entire of last year, to which you want to ignore/overlook this 93% average rate of invalid applications. Even call them valid when deemed invalid.
Better still take a look at the last few months, Syria isn't even featuring on the top5, no war-torn country is.

Still, maybe you're making some nice revenue from the whole situation, so it's best that no one asks any questions, as you'lll respond with childish, invalid name calling to suit your agenda.

The total figures for applications and rejections were given. You've chosen to ignore them.

And you really didn't get the analogy on the two out of ten example? I'd simplified it especially for you.

Seathrun66

enricoh wrote: »

Total number of deportations is the important number, its pitiful, hence the leave to remain spoofers

What is the combined figure for deportations and voluntary return?

Seathrun66

Wibbs wrote: »

Except the rejection rates and acceptance rates from different quarters seem to show who the real refugees actually are. Unless you think the folks tasked to make judgements on the refugee status of people are refugee bashers?

Don't forget to include successful appeals.

NewbridgeIR

WB Yokes wrote: »

Dave Lordan is his name. The butch oulwan with the cowboy hat is Ruth O'Rourke (changed her name to izzy kamikaze) for real!

Lordan is an absolute dose. We have mutual friends on Facebook. All of them are SJWs.

Gatling

Seathrun66 wrote: »

What is the combined figure for deportations and voluntary return?

A total of 9,197 deportation orders have been made since 2011 while only one in five of those who received these orders – 1,857 people – have been deported from Ireland.

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

A total of 9,197 deportation orders have been made since 2011 while only one in five of those who received these orders – 1,857 people – have been deported from Ireland.

Weird you didn't continue the quote. The very next line would have answered the users question for that selected time period.

Some 5,504 people facing deportation have been granted permission to remain following a re-examination of their case since 2011. Another 2,245 returned home voluntarily. So far this year, 174 people facing deportation have chosen to leave voluntarily.

Gatling

Boggles wrote: »

Weird you didn't continue

Not weird at all I posted specifically on deportation ,


And that's before we see the real figure of how many actually applied for asylum and are still here despite being rejected consider 10, 000 pa + were arriving from Nigeria alone ,
It also seems the majority leaving of their own accord with financial benefits

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

Not weird at all I posted specifically on deportation ,

Good for you, but that wasn't the specific question that was asked, you know the one you responded to.

Seathrun66 wrote: »

What is the combined figure for deportations and voluntary return?

The answer was in the very next line of the piece you quoted.

Very weird.