Dole holidays curtailed

runawaybishop

Dempo1 wrote: »

Just to remind you, previously SW recepients allowed two weeks holiday, No such clarity on PUP recepients, the issue at hand is what happened at airports recently. I'm not for a second suggesting SW payments should be paid to those living abroad for extended periods. Again, we need to seperate how the PUP was introduced and requirements to avail of same and more recently the shockingly bad handling of the new clause related to travel which again, makes no mention of payments being stopped.

If it had been reasonablly flagged, announced, explained fine, but this was an abruptly put together ministerial order with no warning or notifications, it has since been proven that inf was only updated on gov websites after Leo's silly comments on Sunday

The updated info was about being available for work and ja/jb holidays have to follow safe travel advice.

You have always needed to be in the country for pup.

blanch152

Dempo1 wrote: »

Just to remind you, previously SW recepients allowed two weeks holiday, No such clarity on PUP recepients, the issue at hand is what happened at airports recently. I'm not for a second suggesting SW payments should be paid to those living abroad for extended periods. Again, we need to seperate how the PUP was introduced and requirements to avail of same and more recently the shockingly bad handling of the new clause related to travel which again, makes no mention of payments being stopped.

If it had been reasonablly flagged, announced, explained fine, but this was an abruptly put together ministerial order with no warning or notifications, it has since been proven that inf was only updated on gov websites after Leo's silly comments on Sunday

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.

Dempo1

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.

Again I'm addressing a blatant discriminatory act dealing with PUP recepients having payments stopped, not cut, stopped. There was little or no warning, notifications and a ham fisted attempt to cover up incompetence.

Whatever about anyone being restricted regarding holidays and I disagree with this across the board albeit I also accept guidelines on travel, it's what haspened with PUP recepients I found galling and the subsequent handling of what I precieve, rightly or wrongly a cover up.

There are data protection concerns, legislative concerns and I believe a concerted effort to stigmatise PUP recepients. There's roughly 6000 going through Dublin Airport daily, I wondered are they questioning all of them, I doubt it.

runawaybishop

Dempo1 wrote: »

Again I'm addressing a blatant discriminatory act dealing with PUP recepients having payments stopped, not cut, stopped. There was little or no warning, notifications and a ham fisted attempt to cover up incompetence.

Whatever about anyone being restricted regarding holidays and I disagree with this across the board albeit I also accept guidelines on travel, it's what haspened with PUP recepients I found galling and the subsequent handling of what I precieve, rightly or wrongly a cover up.

There are data protection concerns, legislative concerns and I believe a concerted effort to stigmatise PUP recepients. There's roughly 6000 going through Dublin Airport daily, I wondered are they questioning all of them, I doubt it.

What is discriminatory about it, exactly. There are no data protection concerns and highly unlikely to be any legislative concerns. You keep saying these things but you havent laid out any reasoning or examples.

Fann Linn

runawaybishop wrote: »

What is discriminatory about it, exactly. There are no data protection concerns and highly unlikely to be any legislative concerns. You keep saying these things but you havent laid out any reasoning or examples.

Well the Data Commissioner has raised concerns regarding data protection and is seeking answers and likewise the Irish Civil Liberties crowd and other barristers/ lawyers are asking questions regarding legality of all of this so its a bit early to be saying, 'nothing to see here, move along now'.

Dempo1

runawaybishop wrote: »

What is discriminatory about it, exactly. There are no data protection concerns and highly unlikely to be any legislative concerns. You keep saying these things but you havent laid out any reasoning or examples.

Dear God have you access to the news??

Data protection : The DAA had to release a statement this morning refuting they share any personal info, data, data pri commissioner has now asked DEASP for clarification.

Legislation: there is none covering PUP, the ministerial order, is just that, an order with a motion pencilled to anul it, furthermore if you accept the order, there is zero ment PUP payment will be stopped or affected.

If you take the time and look back at my numerous posts you see quite clearly how I've laid out my arguments and indeed the facts being discussed on numerous radio stations this morning

kennethsmyth

runawaybishop wrote: »

What is discriminatory about it, exactly. There are no data protection concerns and highly unlikely to be any legislative concerns. You keep saying these things but you havent laid out any reasoning or examples.

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.

Data protection concerns - the quarantine doc that is filled out on arrival states it is not shared and specifies what its use is. Data protection legislation only allows the uses specified to the person to be allowable. Giving over information to social that is not specified on form is against the legislation.

runawaybishop

Dempo1 wrote: »

Dear God have you access to the news??

Data protection : The DAA had to release a statement this morning refuting they share any personal info, data, data pri commissioner has now asked DEASP for clarification.

Legislation: there is none covering PUP, the ministerial order, is just that, an order with a motion pencilled to anul it, furthermore if you accept the order, there is zero ment PUP payment will be stopped or affected.

If you take the time and look back at my numerous posts you see quite clearly how I've laid out my arguments and indeed the facts being discussed on numerous radio stations this morning

Zero GDPR issues, asking people for their PPSNs at an airport isnt a data breech, DEASP are completely allowed to do this.

Explain exactly why there is a legislative issue with stopping SW payments, we already do that for numerous pther payments.

Ive read your posts, nothing you have posted shows discrimination.

runawaybishop

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.

Data protection concerns - the quarantine doc that is filled out on arrival states it is not shared and specifies what its use is. Data protection legislation only allows the uses specified to the person to be allowable. Giving over information to social that is not specified on form is against the legislation.

It is not discriminatory that certain welfare payments require you to be in the country, not even a little bit. Take whatever holidays you want, you wont be paid for them.

No data was shared, but its worth pointing out deasp are exempt from many gdpr laws.

polesheep

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you not understand that because public servants are facing the same restrictions, that it is not discrimination!!!!!

Discrimination is when one group is singled out unfairly. If the government is applying similar restrictions to public servants as well as PUP recipients and job-seekers allowance and 50-60 other social welfare payments, then there is no discrimination!!!!!

It is actually more unfair that public servants are being denied the chance to go on holidays because most of them - nurses, doctors, care assistants, gardai, firemen, army, even teachers - put their lives at risk or worked beyond their normal arrangements durign the pandemic while the PUP recipients got to sit at home safely.

This is a clear example of the entitlement culture gone mad when a small minority of the PUP recipients can't accept what the rest of us have had to - that holidays shouldn't be taken. They want to put the rest of us at risk, and those of us who are still paying taxes don't deserve to be put at risk like that.

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.

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!