Social welfare raids

Dempo1

Smoothrider wrote: »

That's not true actually. The gardai do not have a general power to stop and question people at random. They have specific powers under the Road Traffic Acts and or if you're involved in public order offences or are otherwise under real suspicion of being involved in the commission of an arrestable offence, but there is no blanket power to stop and question any member of the public as they go about their lawful business.

100% correct and I suspect Garda HQ is regretting the day they ever involved any of their staff to SW, heads are about to role on this and both the data protection commissioner and FLAC saying they are not satisfied the actions taken we're legal, also spare a thought for the lady who booked a ferry and didn't actually take the trip, her payments stopped, were did her info come from? And finally the couple who's children's allowance was stopped, clearly SW and the Gardai could not stop SW payments as they were not claiming any, an absolute disgrace. Before the foreigner bashers start, wife naturalised Irish citizen, hubby and children Irish citizens, they were going to a green list country on a F€&KING Holiday.

Oranage2

Seems wrong but also seems right.

2400+ people were caught leaving the country and didn't announce therefore claiming a payment they weren't entitled too.

How they got this information seems so dodgy. Social welfare can work with other organizations to gather information but the manner in which the information was got seems to be unlawful.

gral6

weldoninhio wrote: »

Of the 2500 people who’s PUP was stopped, only 85 were not leaving Ireland permanently. But you continue there with your little rant. Hopefully no service you need is pulled due to lack of budget.

I am not buying this bul**** that only 85 people were coming back to Ireland. What a ****ing joke new government are !

Graham

weldoninhio wrote: »

Of the 2500 people who’s PUP was stopped, only 85 were not leaving Ireland permanently. But you continue there with your little rant. Hopefully no service you need is pulled due to lack of budget.

Even if that were the case, are you suggesting the law can be ignored depending on the results?

Can AGS/SW decide unilaterally which laws they can ignore?

Do we need the legislature if state bodies get to decide for themselves that legislation can be disregarded?

shindig-jp

If you have come through immigration and have not been stoped at the point of entry by immigration officials and are allowed to pass unhindered at that point, the bearer of said Irish PassPort can pass freely . Should you be met by officials who are screening and asking you questions on Land side, you can request a solicitor to be present during questioning

titan18

Graham wrote:

Even if that were the case, are you suggesting the law can be ignored depending on the results?

If it's resulting in catching in a lot of people trying to commit fraud, then yes. If causing a small inconvenience to some people will result in us stopping welfare fraud, its fine imo. Should be legal to do these checks and share information if it's not legal now

Graham

titan18 wrote: »

If it's resulting in catching in a lot of people trying to commit fraud, then yes. If causing a small inconvenience to some people will result in us stopping welfare fraud, its fine imo. Should be legal to do these checks and share information if it's not legal now

We have elected representatives to make laws. If the laws need changing, there's a process in place to support that.

I don't think it's a particularly good idea to start suggesting the civil service can decide which laws they can ignore.

ILoveYourVibes

gral6 wrote: »

Do you have to show your passport to social welfare lads accompanied by Garda in Dublin airport?
Do you have a legal right to refuse?

Lol they stopped a barrister recently now he is taking legal action.

The word from the airport is they don't know these people etc ..have not given permission for this to happen.

Its very dubious legally.

The thing is its unworkable. They can't check everyone and they are not ...and certainly not at 3 o'clock in the morning.

Funkfield

https://www.gov.ie/en/organisation-information/534503-privacy-statement/#section-9-sharing-personal-data

This thread is full of chancers

JustAThought

Frim what I recall if you are on jobseekers allowance you are allowed apply for a 2 week holiday from jobseeking once every 12 months and if this is granted your payment will be made to you on your return - if permission os given. Otherwise you are not seeking and available for work and somcan have your payment stopped and be prosecuted for illegal claims.

Seems fair if you are claiming a benefit paid for by hardwrking taxpayers saying you have no income and are available and looking for work. I like to think you’re actually doing tour bit Nd not jollying around overses having a laugh at taxpayers expense and actually are doing ehat you are being paid to - seek and be available for work. Not drinking beers on a beech or gigging in bars in Belgium or doing Irrsh dancing for cash in Paris. etc

doc22

Boxcar_Willie wrote: »

Yes , but do they have the right to pass immigration details to the Dept. of Social Protection ? Is there a breach of data protection here ?

From what I've seen on the news and read the Gardaí conducting these inspections specifically said that it was a " Passport Check " or " Immigration Check ".

They are the department of social protection(seconded officers)?

Given the numbers flying and the numbers of people of social welfare payments now they'd have reasonable grounds to check everyone

MickeyLeari

doc22 wrote: »

They are the department of social protection(seconded officers)?

Given the numbers flying and the numbers of people of social welfare payments now they'd have reasonable grounds to check everyone

Their mistake in all this was not preparing the ground announcing in advance that there will be checks in airports and informing/reminding PUP recipients of the rules before they occurred. The other mistake was that some (a significant number of) people were receiving more on the PUP than they had earned previously.

Graham

doc22 wrote: »

They are the department of social protection(seconded officers)?

Given the numbers flying and the numbers of people of social welfare payments now they'd have reasonable grounds to check everyone

What reasonable grounds?

If someone is passing through the airport/port, someone who has not received ANY pandemic related or SW payments. What reasonable grounds exist to believe that there has been a contravention of the Acts?

"lots of people are claiming" is not reasonable.

Boxcar_Willie

doc22 wrote: »

They are the department of social protection(seconded officers)?

Given the numbers flying and the numbers of people of social welfare payments now they'd have reasonable grounds to check everyone

They were wearing Garda vests or Garda jackets and specifically said that this was a Passport or Immigration check .

doc22

Boxcar_Willie wrote: »

They were wearing Garda vests or Garda jackets and specifically said that this was a Passport or Immigration check .

They are garda? What would you call the checks they were doing?

I don't get the upset that say up to 2000 Brazilians etc aren't claiming PUP while sitting in their native country.

Graham

doc22 wrote: »

They are garda? What would you call the checks they were doing?

Social welfare checks

doc22 wrote: »

I don't get the upset that say up to 2000 Brazilians etc aren't claiming PUP while sitting in their native country.

Nobody has suggested they're upset.

Some of us are concerned that a state body can unilaterally decide to ignore the law.

is_that_so

MickeyLeari wrote: »

Their mistake in all this was not preparing the ground announcing in advance that there will be checks in airports and informing/reminding PUP recipients of the rules before they occurred. The other mistake was that some (a significant number of) people were receiving more on the PUP than they had earned previously.

It was a plan to give everyone who needed money access to it. Speed was absolutely of the essence, It was inevitable some things would need attention post hoc. Far better to have the obvious flaws subject to intemperate hindsight whingeing than to be accused of doing nothing at all.

helpful

JustAThought wrote: »

Frim what I recall if you are on jobseekers allowance you are allowed apply for a 2 week holiday from jobseeking once every 12 months and if this is granted your payment will be made to you on your return - if permission os given. Otherwise you are not seeking and available for work and somcan have your payment stopped and be prosecuted for illegal claims.

Seems fair if you are claiming a benefit paid for by hardwrking taxpayers saying you have no income and are available and looking for work. I like to think you’re actually doing tour bit Nd not jollying around overses having a laugh at taxpayers expense and actually are doing ehat you are being paid to - seek and be available for work. Not drinking beers on a beech or gigging in bars in Belgium or doing Irrsh dancing for cash in Paris. etc

As has been pointed out already though those people on PUP are tax laying citizens who work in industries which were shut by the government and have yet to return to work. I’m sure there are those who are delighted to not be back to work but many who want to go back.
I would assume most of these holidays were booked in advance of the pandemic and paid for while these people were working.
I also wasn’t aware that those on PUP needed to be looking for jobs? Surely they’ll be going back to work soon enough so for now can claim PUP and just get back the tax they had been paying

JustAThought

From what I read on the front page of aome
tanloid the issue was with PUP recipients leaving Ireland to work - in a dancing troupe - in Paris - illegally - and also PUP recipient ‘musician’ travelling abroad to gig - agin for payment. That and the droves signing on as jobseeking while
not declaring they were not in face jobseeking, but exiting the country to bask on beaches abroad. You can’t expect the taxpayer to continue paying for scammers and cheats when there is an easy way to identify them and strike them
off.

Graham

JustAThought wrote: »

You can’t expect the taxpayer to continue paying for scammers and cheats when there is an easy way to identify them and strike them
off.

That argument would carry much more weight if

1) it had been done legally
2) it targeted/punished only those breaking the law

Atlantic Dawn

Boxcar_Willie wrote: »

They were wearing Garda vests or Garda jackets and specifically said that this was a Passport or Immigration check .

An immigration check on people leaving the country?

Boxcar_Willie

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

An immigration check on people leaving the country?

That's what they said they were conducting .

B.A._Baracus

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you are advising people to commit a crime.

Ah boards.ie
The place where every single person is a saint and has never said or done anything wrong in their life :pac:

Risteard81

Herb Powell wrote: »

not without good reason

It was absolutely without good reason, and was unlawful and illegal.

Herb Powell

Risteard81 wrote: »

It was absolutely without good reason, and was unlawful and illegal.

Oh sorry, the aul contagious virus that spreads easily in large indoor gatherings mustn't have been a factor at all so, my bad. They just shut it down because government bad.

Lundstram

Herb Powell wrote: »

Oh sorry, the aul contagious virus that spreads easily in large indoor gatherings mustn't have been a factor at all so, my bad. They just shut it down because government bad.

Doesn't give them the right to throw Irish constitution book down the drain and do what they like. If that's your thing, go live in China or North Korea.

I'd be politely telling them where to go if they asked me for my PPSN in the middle of a crowded airport. Chancers.

Herb Powell

Lundstram wrote: »

Doesn't give them the right to throw Irish constitution book down the drain and do what they like. If that's your thing, go live in China or North Korea.

I'd be politely telling them where to go if they asked me for my PPSN in the middle of a crowded airport. Chancers.

I strongly oppose that practice too, and I wasn't talking about that. I actually said above I find the wording/requirement ridiculous.

If it wasn't clear, what I meant by "good reason" was the closure of businesses/industries which rely on the gathering of people, to try stem the rate of infection.