Dole holidays curtailed

kennethsmyth

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Discriminatory - pup persons are made of two types - temporary laid off and permanently laid off. The temporary laid off should be allowed holidays as normal - where they go is not socials concern. The permanently laid off should be given the same rules as job seekers, which presently allows holidays - again where they go is not socials concern.

But officially, there's no such thing as temporarily or permanently laid off. You're either getting the PUP or you're not. If you're getting it, then you never signed anything, or seen anything, that said you couldn't holiday. You aren't expected to look for work, either.


The official Social welfare advice, when you signed up for the payment, is to the effect of if you think your job is a goner, then close your PUP payment and sign on for Jobseekers instead.


Unless you've actually signed up for a Jobseeker payment, the rules of the Jobseeker scheme have nothing to do with you.

polesheep

blanch152 wrote: »

In this particular situation, the only people wanting to go on holidays and able to get the time and money to go on holidays are social welfare recipients, so any criticism is fully deserved.

I'll be going on holiday in five weeks' time and I have never claimed social welfare other than Children's Allowance.

polesheep

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but other social welfare recipients - JSA, JSB - have been told they can't take holidays abroad either, as have public servants as I have pointed out.

Why are you only concerned about PUP recipients and not all the others stopped from holidays?

Another point is that if you booked before March, you are entitled to a refund.

Where did you get this information from?

Fann Linn

polesheep wrote: »

Where did you get this information from?

I'd love to know too as I booked and paid for a holiday last November.

polesheep

What the last few days has shown us is that we are not, and never were, all in this together.

seamus

polesheep wrote: »

Of course it's discrimination. I can go on holiday tomorrow without any sanction whatsoever. A nurse, garda, PUP recipient cannot. That is obvious discrimination.

Discrimination is not illegal. Or ethically wrong.

Only certain types of discrimination are illegal and/or ethically wrong.

Edgware

polesheep wrote: »

I'll be going on holiday in five weeks' time and I have never claimed social welfare other than Children's Allowance.

Shame shame!

James Brown

meeeeh wrote: »

I think the majority of people whose payment was cancelled were leaving the country. You can't check on return because then you miss everyone leaving for good.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/most-who-had-pup-cut-off-were-leaving-country-permanently-says-government-1.4315556?mode=amp

Anyway it's a lot of fuss for nothing. It would be ridiculous if government was paying people to do exactly what they are advising them not to do.

What's ridiculous is allowing foreign travel during a pandemic and attacking people for traveling.
There is certainly a PR move to demonise people in receipt of CERB payments. It'll be the new narrative from the people brought you €16,000 pay hikes, then a lesser cut because they are stand up guys and gals.
Cynical wretches.
Nobody should be allowed travel abroad.

hatrickpatrick

TomTomTim wrote: »

Isn't this tantamount to the government essentially trying to give advisory policy a quasi legal status by attaching a penalty? That goes against the very nature of what advisory polices are, as they aren't meant to have any penalties attached to them.

This is it exactly, and doing so dishonestly by adding these penalties in to existing and previously published government documents without any notice or clarification that these documents were altered months after being published.

If a private company at the centre of a public controversy, or a news outlet, was caught making edits to published documentation without including the standard “This document was edited at 12.43pm on Tuesday, 28/7/20, to reflect changes in policy relating to the subject of this document”, the public and the government would be up in arms about it. It is completely unacceptable to attempt to mislead the public in this manner.

polesheep

seamus wrote: »

Discrimination is not illegal. Or ethically wrong.

Only certain types of discrimination are illegal and/or ethically wrong.

The discrimination being referred to is defined in dictionaries as: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people. Of course that can be legal, as it was in South Africa once upon a time, but I for one could never consider it ethical.

polesheep

Edgware wrote: »

Shame shame!

I know, but I did spend it all on the children.:D

homes_for_all

So why shouldn't unemployed people be allowed to holiday? I think some here would like to see them brutalised and subsist on gruel. It's been a hard time for everyone, let's not look for a boogey man to be angry at.

Annasopra

runawaybishop wrote: »

The travel advisory is irrelevant and that lad hasnt a clue. You must be in the state to get pup. Many of our welfare payments have this clause.

Hes a barrister. He has explained it all. Can you explain where you think he is wrong.

runawaybishop

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Hes a barrister. He has explained it all. Can you explain where you think he is wrong.

The bit where he conflates the advisory with PUP. They are mutually exclusive.

Hoop66

homes_for_all wrote: »

let's not look for a boogey man to be angry at.

Are you new here?

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

Public servants have also been stopped going on holidays as well, because they have been told that they need to take unpaid leave for the quarantine period which will cost them money.

It is harsh but correct from a public health point of view. I have no sympathy for the bleating of the entitlement class.

I genuinely feel you’re missing the point here. I have said in several posts on this thread that I absolutely agree with preventing people from traveling (as far as I’m concerned, our border should be closed to non-essential incoming travellers and outgoing travellers who intend to return to the state, end of story) but this should have been done through legislation with a clear, well defined and unambiguous set of rules.

The issue with this is as it relates to the PUP is that not only has government advice about travel been flip flopping all over the place for weeks, but also that they are attempting to retrospectively change the rules about a particular payment in order to enforce something which is not and was not enshrined into law at the time that people signed up for the payment.

Now, of course changes to the rules as time passes are needed - hell, that’s literally the purpose of government, to amend, add or remove rules as the situation relating to those rules changes over time. Nobody is disputing that.

What people are angered by, very specifically, are two issues.

1: The government decided to introduce enforcement of these rules through an indirect and uncommunicated means, because those rules have no legal basis to be enforced in the first place

And, far, far more seriously:

2: The government attempted to revise the pre-existing documents to include their new rules, without ever informing anyone of these changes having been made, and subsequently attempting to trick people into believing that the rules has always been in place and that the documents had merely been misread by everyone who insisted that those rules hadn’t existed previous to this weekend.

Leave the issue of social welfare aside for a moment because it’s honestly not the relevant issue here. The issue is that the government has blatantly lied to the general public, attempted to cover up their lie by trying to trick people into not noticing edits to government documents, and trying to give an enforcement basis to rules they have been too disorganized to codify into law as they get should have been weeks ago.

Comparisons with George Orwell’s works are frequently derided as hyperbolic, but consider the following: a central theme in the book is the ability of those who are literate, to gaslight those who are not. They do this by amending published documents and rules - “No animal shall sleep in a bed” becomes “No animal shall sleep with in a bed with sheets”, for example, and the more famous “All animals are equal” becomes “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”. The entire purpose of this storyline is to illustrate how those in power s frequently attempt to change the rules and then pretend there has been no change, and that the people are simply wrong in remembering that there used to be different rules in place.

Such deception is straight out of the playbook of tyrannical and undenocratic regimes, so much so that it’s referenfed in perhaps the most famous cautionary tale of all time in relation to totalitarianism.

That is what our government now stands accused of engaging in, with ample evidence to support that accusation.

Are you seriously going to tell me that this doesn’t bother you merely because it relates to a social welfare payment?

Take this to it’s logical conclusion. Supposing they try to pull a similar trick with regard to any other matter of public controversy - ministerial pay rises (“We didn’t raise their pay, they were always being paid this amount as evidenced by these previously published government documents”), the Garda scandals (“We never attacked Sgt McCabe, we’ve always stood behind him 100% as evidenced by these previously published government documents”), the CervicalCheck scandal (“There were no cover ups performed, all of these women were informed at the time that their tests had been positive, as evidenced by these previously published government documents”), redress for abuse survivors (“We never claimed that no abuse had taken place or protected the institutions involved, the government condemned this many decades ago and fully supported he victims, as evidenced by these previously published government documents”) - etc, etc, etc.

Making changes to government documents without an accompanying note to reflect the fact that changes have been made, and doing so in order to cover up either a mis-statement by a government official or an unannounced change in policy masquerading as a longstanding policy, is utterly and entirely unacceptable. It’s chilling, it flies in the face of democracy and freedom of information, it is a threat to the integrity of our state and is an abhorrence towards public faith in and trust of our hard-won democratic institutions.

Nobody should be defending this appalling episode. Nobody. The only people for whom this should not provoke anger are those for whom the democratic institutions of the state and the accountability of that state to the voting public holds absolutely no value whatsoever. For the rest of us, this is a serious incident of the utmost severity, and consequences must swiftly follow for those involved.

meeeeh

homes_for_all wrote: »

So why shouldn't unemployed people be allowed to holiday? I think some here would like to see them brutalised and subsist on gruel. It's been a hard time for everyone, let's not look for a boogey man to be angry at.

They can holiday in Ireland.

ExMachina1000

Legislation to be passed this evening. People must be genuinely seeking work.

Still not much in the media about the 250 mostly Brazilians who were caught trying to leave the country for home while still claiming the payment into their bank accounts.
Thieves .

They shouldn't be permitted back in

Eric Cartman

homes_for_all wrote: »

So why shouldn't unemployed people be allowed to holiday? I think some here would like to see them brutalised and subsist on gruel. It's been a hard time for everyone, let's not look for a boogey man to be angry at.

I think what my and many other posters keep banging on about is if we got closer to brutalisation and gruel that the numbers unemployed would fall sharply before you even got there. We have the worlds most generous welfare system and the proof in the pudding of its generosity is that suspending the payment of that welfare while they jet off to a sunny climate is a controversial topic.

Pkiernan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think what my and many other posters keep banging on about is if we got closer to brutalisation and gruel that the numbers unemployed would fall sharply before you even got there. We have the worlds most generous welfare system and the proof in the pudding of its generosity is that suspending the payment of that welfare while they jet off to a sunny climate is a controversial topic.

Hear hear.

What has spawned is the doleflake generation!

Dempo1

This thread has certainly attracted interesting a diverse views, but I learned tonight that a couple heading to Bulgaria (wife naturilised Irish citizen, hubby Irish) with their two kids, early July, every passenger questioned by SW inspectors. Hubby being a law student refused, Gardai approached them afterwards, asked for their passports say part of immigration checks (on a flight departure???), wrote down passport details and let them board.

A number of weeks later after their return, their children's child benefits stopped, on explaining there is nothing stating child benefits can be cut for travelling, SW working on reinstating benifits, matters now under investigation and Gardai being asked to account for their actions.

So not just PUP or SW recepients being targeted

Beechwoodspark

Dempo1 wrote: »

This thread has certainly attracted interesting a diverse views, but I learned tonight that a couple heading to Bulgaria (wife naturilised Irish citizen, hubby Irish) with their two kids, early July, every passenger questioned by SW inspectors. Hubby being a law student refused, Gardai approached them afterwards, asked for their passports say part of immigration checks (on a flight departure???), wrote down passport details and let them board.

A number of weeks later after their return, their children's child benefits stopped, on explaining there is nothing stating child benefits can be cut for travelling, SW working on reinstating benifits, matters now under investigation and Gardai being asked to account for their actions.

So not just PUP or SW recepients being targeted

That’s the liveline guy?

Beechwoodspark

Quite honestly I’m disgusted

With ppl who want hard earned taxpayers money

To go on holidays

blanch152

homes_for_all wrote: »

So why shouldn't unemployed people be allowed to holiday? I think some here would like to see them brutalised and subsist on gruel. It's been a hard time for everyone, let's not look for a boogey man to be angry at.

Nobody should go on holiday.

Public servants can't go because they would have to quarantine on their own time, private sector workers can't go because either they lost their jobs, had their pay cut or were forced to take their annual leave during lockdown. None of them are taking up the airwaves, crowding Twitter or posting nonsense on boards about their situation.

The only people looking to go on holiday and complaining when they aren't let are the social welfare recipients. The entitlement culture gone mad.

I see sheep

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think what my and many other posters keep banging on about is if we got closer to brutalisation and gruel that the numbers unemployed would fall sharply before you even got there. We have the worlds most generous welfare system and the proof in the pudding of its generosity is that suspending the payment of that welfare while they jet off to a sunny climate is a controversial topic.

If you think the dole is so great why don't you do it then?

Do you even have a job? I'm not sure I could keep my job going and still post here 100 times a day complaining about people on social welfare and explaining why being on the dole is the greatest life in the world.

blanch152

Dempo1 wrote: »

This thread has certainly attracted interesting a diverse views, but I learned tonight that a couple heading to Bulgaria (wife naturilised Irish citizen, hubby Irish) with their two kids, early July, every passenger questioned by SW inspectors. Hubby being a law student refused, Gardai approached them afterwards, asked for their passports say part of immigration checks (on a flight departure???), wrote down passport details and let them board.

A number of weeks later after their return, their children's child benefits stopped, on explaining there is nothing stating child benefits can be cut for travelling, SW working on reinstating benifits, matters now under investigation and Gardai being asked to account for their actions.

So not just PUP or SW recepients being targeted

Good, shouldn't be going on holiday.

As I understand it, if you leave Ireland to live abroad, child benefit is no longer payable. In order to get around the going on holiday issue, the couple probably told the gardai they were going home to Bulgaria. The gardai, taking them at their word, had the Child Benefit cancelled.

I see sheep

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody should go on holiday.

private sector workers can't go because either they lost their jobs, had their pay cut or were forced to take their annual leave during lockdown.

What are you on about? Thousands of private sector workers have gone on holiday.

SusieBlue

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Quite honestly I’m disgusted

With ppl who want hard earned taxpayers money

To go on holidays

Did it ever occur to you that the majority of these people booked these holidays using their own hard earned wages long before coronavirus was a word we heard on the news every day?
And that after already being laid off, they won’t be entitled to any refunds because flights are still going ahead because the government won’t take a hard stance on travel?

And the fact that they are out of work through absolutely no fault of their own, and can only claim said social welfare because they themselves were also tax payers up till very recently?

ExMachina1000

Some of you dont seem to realise that there are a few hundred thousand foreign nationals working here and paying tax. They are entitled to the PUP also.

Gardai and social welfare officials are targeting them too as they are going home but not signing off the payment.

Massive potential loss to the tax payers

blanch152

SusieBlue wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that the majority of these people booked these holidays using their own hard earned wages long before coronavirus was a word we heard on the news every day?
And that after already being laid off, they won’t be entitled to any refunds because flights are still going ahead because the government won’t take a hard stance on travel?

And the fact that they are out of work through absolutely no fault of their own, and can only claim said social welfare because they themselves were also tax payers up till very recently?

That is rubbish. If the government are advising against non-essential travel, they are entitled to a refund.

Dempo1

blanch152 wrote: »

Good, shouldn't be going on holiday.

As I understand it, if you leave Ireland to live abroad, child benefit is no longer payable. In order to get around the going on holiday issue, the couple probably told the gardai they were going home to Bulgaria. The gardai, taking them at their word, had the Child Benefit cancelled.

Living abroad is very different from holidaying abroad and as explained, payment being reinstated with grovelling apologies

theguzman

Its very easy to fly out of Belfast and connect from there to Heathrow or Amsterdam etc. This sort of SS like surveillance should be tolerated, either we pay welfare via food stamps or else it should be none of the states business how it is spent. I personally favour a complete dismantling of the welfare state and public healthcare system and funds should be diverted into extra policing and justice.

Dempo1

SusieBlue wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that the majority of these people booked these holidays using their own hard earned wages long before coronavirus was a word we heard on the news every day?
And that after already being laid off, they won’t be entitled to any refunds because flights are still going ahead because the government won’t take a hard stance on travel?

And the fact that they are out of work through absolutely no fault of their own, and can only claim said social welfare because they themselves were also tax payers up till very recently?

Excellent point but sadly there are some quite narrow minded people out there, but at least "we are all in this together" unless of course your on PUP, amazing none of these saintly individuals not moaning about TWSS, the scheme that actually allows you 75% of your salary, with a top up and stay at home, yes indeed it's actually allowed, some earning over €2800 a month. What do the PUP bashers think of this, your taxes are paying for this

SusieBlue

blanch152 wrote: »

That is rubbish. If the government are advising against non-essential travel, they are entitled to a refund.

If the flight is going and you choose not to get on it, and the hotel is open but you choose not to go, you’re entitled to nothing. I was lucky enough to be able to get a refund/voucher for mine but I know other people who were not so lucky.
A man I heard on the radio this week stands to lose 5k on a family holiday that he can’t get a refund for.
He’s one of many stories I heard, a man who worked his whole life never claimed a cent who is now out of work through no fault of his own and who now stands to lose even more because the government won’t ban non essential travel.
By not banning it the government are giving airlines and travel agents a loophole to avoid reimbursing or rescheduling, that’s the problem here.

James Brown

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Some of you dont seem to realise that there are a few hundred thousand foreign nationals working here and paying tax. They are entitled to the PUP also.

Gardai and social welfare officials are targeting them too as they are going home but not signing off the payment.

Massive potential loss to the tax payers

That's very commendable.
Some cranks are trying to make it about unemployed people, Irish citizens, going on holiday. While I do not support it, it was a long running rule that they could once they gave welfare notice.

blanch152

SusieBlue wrote: »

If the flight is going and you choose not to get on it, and the hotel is open but you choose not to go, you’re entitled to nothing. I was lucky enough to be able to get a refund/voucher for mine but I know other people who were not so lucky.
A man I heard on the radio this week stands to lose 5k on a family holiday that he can’t get a refund for.
He’s one of many stories I heard, a man who worked his whole life never claimed a cent who is now out of work through no fault of his own and who now stands to lose even more because the government won’t ban non essential travel.
By not banning it the government are giving airlines and travel agents a loophole to avoid reimbursing or rescheduling, that’s the problem here.

If you booked with a travel agent, you are entitled to a refund.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer/travel/travel_plans_and_covid19.html

Here is the link to the relevant guidelines.

The only issue would be where someone has booked all of the parts of the holiday themselves, and not through a tour operator or travel agent. In those cases, the advice has always been to have travel insurance, as you are not covered by the State guarantee to travel agents.

In the same way that if your house burns down without insurance, you are not covered, if you make your own travel plans without insurance, you are not covered.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

That's very commendable.
Some cranks are trying to make it about unemployed people, Irish citizens, going on holiday. While I do not support it, it was a long running rule that they could once they gave welfare notice.

A long-running rule that was changed because of the advice not to travel abroad and put your fellow citizens at risk when you return.

Of course the entitlement class objected to this, they have no interest in the wellbeing of the hard working ordinary man who is paying for their week in Ibiza.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

A long-running rule that was changed because of the advice not to travel abroad and put your fellow citizens at risk when you return.

Of course the entitlement class objected to this, they have no interest in the wellbeing of the hard working ordinary man who is paying for their week in Ibiza.

They changed that rule while allowing foreign travel during a pandemic, for safety, sure.
Seems to me FFFG and the Greens are the entitlement class. Some of us get what we are due and no more while others get to give themselves pay rises. Nice 'work' if you can get it.

Dempo1

Interesting bed time reading

https://www.thejournal.ie/no-clear-legal-basis-to-removal-of-pup-for-travelling-abroad-5162465-Jul2020/

fritzelly

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1288220248307576835

Dempo1

fritzelly wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1288220248307576835

Interesting, it was never going to succeed but delighted two government TD's show some character. This will rumble on no doubt and with the shocking incompetence shown over the past few weeks, this coalition, like it's appalling decisions is on shakey grounds.

God I hope there's no resurgs of Covid-19, with this shower, we are snookered and PUP recepients travelling will seem trivial by comparison.

blanch152

Dempo1 wrote: »

Interesting, it was never going to succeed but delighted two government TD's show some character. This will rumble on no doubt and with the shocking incompetence shown over the past few weeks, this coalition, like it's appalling decisions is on shakey grounds.

God I hope there's no resurgs of Covid-19, with this shower, we are snookered and PUP recepients travelling will seem trivial by comparison.

It won't rumble on, but if it does, it could cause more harm to Sinn Fein and the rest of the opposition. Ordinary working people are horrified that they keep working while the entitlement class feel that they can ignore all of the advice and travel at will.

ExMachina1000

fritzelly wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1288220248307576835

Green is yes
Red is no

What is blue? I don't mind?

fritzelly

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Green is yes
Red is no

What is blue? I don't mind?

Abstained

Mad_maxx

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think what my and many other posters keep banging on about is if we got closer to brutalisation and gruel that the numbers unemployed would fall sharply before you even got there. We have the worlds most generous welfare system and the proof in the pudding of its generosity is that suspending the payment of that welfare while they jet off to a sunny climate is a controversial topic.

That a perfectly sound decision was met with outrage is indicative of how far left our media and commentariat is

The narrative today insists that those who don't work are entitled to all of the same things as those who do

A country with those values is one that is in serious trouble and facing a troubled future

ChelseaRentBoy

Former Former wrote: »

Sooo, should you not be even more outraged than the rest of us by people claiming benefits to which they are not entitled, and so giving the wider community of welfare recipients a bad rep?

No.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Pkiernan wrote: »

No one is calling pup recipients scroungers.

Do you honestly believe that taxpayers should pay for foreign holidays? Especially when our domestic tourism sector is gutted?

Personally I don't like paying 53% tax.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

We should be doing this anyway. If youre on the states dime you shouldnt be in a different country. I dont know what it is about how far ‘human rights’ have come , but a foreign holiday is not a human right or anywhere close to it.

Even those of us who get money from the state because we’re terminally ill and will never work again? We get funded by the taxpayer. Are we to stay in the country for good because of the source of our money? Maybe you think so but I bet you wouldn’t say that to my face.

ChelseaRentBoy

polesheep wrote: »

What the last few days has shown us is that we are not, and never were, all in this together.

And youve only realised that in the last few days?

ChelseaRentBoy

meeeeh wrote: »

They can holiday in Ireland.

Staying in Ireland isn't a holiday for the majority of people

Spanish Eyes

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Even those of us who get money from the state because we’re terminally ill and will never work again? We get funded by the taxpayer. Are we to stay in the country for good because of the source of our money? Maybe you think so but I bet you wouldn’t say that to my face.

Sorry that you are ill. But seriously would you risk travelling abroad now?

I know that wasn't your question, but the answer is obvious. Most people are pulling together and staying at home now. Those who don't or won't are selfish creatures in the main and hard left supporters I reckon. Some of them have to be given instructions.