Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Social welfare raids

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    doc22
    Registered Users Posts: 881 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #63
    MickeyLeari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 917 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #64
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #65
    Boxcar_Willie
    Registered Users Posts: 428 ✭✭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 .


  • Options
    #66
    doc22
    Registered Users Posts: 881 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #68
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #69
    helpful
    Registered Users Posts: 105 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #70
    JustAThought
    Registered Users Posts: 5,324 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #71
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 82,413 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    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?


  • Options
    #73
    Boxcar_Willie
    Registered Users Posts: 428 ✭✭Boxcar_Willie


    Atlantic Dawn wrote: »
    An immigration check on people leaving the country?

    That's what they said they were conducting .


  • Options
    #74
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,191 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Options
    #75
    Risteard81
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭Risteard81


    Herb Powell wrote: »
    not without good reason
    It was absolutely without good reason, and was unlawful and illegal.


  • Options
    #76
    Herb Powell
    Registered Users Posts: 3,097 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #77
    Lundstram
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #78
    Herb Powell
    Registered Users Posts: 3,097 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement