Rathgar council tenants in luxury apartments claim discrimination over facilities

glenfieldman

The Oort Cloud wrote: »

Well it looks like fraud is ok so, well that's what it would seem to be if they are getting caught and let away with it. No accountability on either side.

Its not fraud if your a traveller or just off the plane from a **** country

sanfranbest

Same thing happened in New York a few years ago,
They called it the "Poor Door"

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/nyregion/separate-entryways-for-new-york-condo-buyers-and-renters-create-an-affordable-housing-dilemma.html

Wibbs

fullstop wrote: »

The Twitter profile is 100% him. He’s even liking posts which are pro the IT article

And his twitter is almost entirely about discrimination and racism. Apparently over an incident in a Canadian airport. That must have been the reason he fled.

Hmmm... I wonder what card he'll play if questioned? He's already pulled the discrimination stuff and I seriously doubt it's over his social housing status. Are the palefaces also in social housing in that complex being discriminated in the same way in his head? I doubt it.

And watch the usual muppets support him in this and too many will draw their heads back in like frightened turtles in case someone accuses them of racism.

The Oort Cloud

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be gobsmacked if that were the case. He'll not see the news and if he does it will almost certainly be spun as a hard luck story, especially by RTE.

Oort and with genuine respect, you come across as pretty naive on this stuff. The law does not apply to everyone and certainly not consistently or with much by way of teeth. Read any daily court reports and you will have obvious career criminals walking free, many with multiple convictions and chancers barely register. We have people in direct provision for years with bogus claims taking up the courts time and resources beyond the court costing us hundreds of millions. This very week, we have a guy on Romania's most wanted list sentenced in absentia by his own country for being a trafficker of women and children, described by the Gardai as a serious flight risk with working knowledge of crossing borders "under the radar"(well that was his vile trade) given bail by an Irish judge. Irish law? Really? I admire your confidence.

If he's in this country for less than two years and coming from a safe country like Canada(regularly in the top ten safest on Earth), the chances of him getting disability allowance, never mind social housing are bloody slim indeed. Unless he's been fast tracked over Irish people. I personally know two people who unfortunately ended up on disability benefit because of life changing and obvious disabilities and while they got help the quickest to get the actual disability allowance was just under 18 months. The other person was closer to two and a half years. They have cracked down heavily on awarding that of late. Well too many chancers were availing of it.

Maybe I am a bit naive W, but I always like to think that the justice system works in some way. Fooling myself I suppose maybe.

Eric Cartman

sanfranbest wrote: »

Same thing happened in New York a few years ago,
They called it the "Poor Door"

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/nyregion/separate-entryways-for-new-york-condo-buyers-and-renters-create-an-affordable-housing-dilemma.html

in those buildings in NY and London with concierge services and doormen that residents pay a bomb in management fees for, I wholeheartedly support 'poor door' policies.

Donald Trump

fullstop wrote: »

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

This is a link to a twitter account? To either someone with the same name
it certainly doesn't look like the same guy.
I can find nothing relating to what you have said.





They don't look alike.

The Twitter profile is 100% him. He’s even liking posts which are pro the IT article

For anyone who somehow can't tell they are the same person, this is a screenshot from that twitter account that shows a different profile pic that is the spit of the IT photo.




The image is saved on his twitter (for now)

Eric Cartman

Donald Trump wrote: »

For anyone who somehow can't tell they are the same person, this is a screenshot from that twitter account that shows a different profile pic that is the spit of the IT photo.




The image is saved on his twitter (for now)

keep all of these details, actually, email them to the Indo. Im sure they'd love to do an expose that shows up the shoddy times journalism and this fraud.

bb1234567

Wonder how much hate mail he is getting on his twitter. He is asking for it

Wibbs

Eric Cartman wrote: »

keep all of these details, actually, email them to the Indo. Im sure they'd love to do an expose that shows up the shoddy times journalism and this fraud.

I'd be very surprised if any of the main media outlets would touch this with a barge pole. Maybe one of the red tops, or a crowd like the Sunday Times that are less bound to here.

Eric Cartman

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if any of the main media outlets would touch this with a barge pole. Maybe one of the red tops, or a crowd like the Sunday Times that are less bound to here.

the mail would probably run it no bother. But I fear you're right. No journo wants to become known as 'the racist' for pointing out any of the very very regular occurrences of benefit fraud committed by migrants here.

nullzero

fullstop wrote: »

Apparently gave up his Dartry gym membership to join there. The gym in Dartry is north of €500 per year. This lad just seems like he likes to cry discrimination all the time to try to get a few quid out of it.

Seems like a load of nonsense.

He's got a free luxury apartment, to me that would be like winning the lottery and I'd be keeping my trap shut.

Most Gyms are over €600 a year, so it sounds like he was getting a good deal where he was.

This guy seems like a bit of a grifter from some of the things being posted here about him. Perhaps a time is coming where access to the gym may be the least of his worries.

Spanish Eyes

Like I said earlier, editorial oversight in the IT is rubbish.

The Kitty Hollands of this world need to give their head a wobble. A tiny cohort might agree, must the vast majority are not impressed at all.

bb1234567

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Like I said earlier, editorial oversight in the IT is rubbish.

The Kitty Hollands of this world need to give their head a wobble. A tiny cohort might agree, must the vast majority are not impressed at all.

Yeh if it was sympathy they were trying to evoke or an awareness of class prejudice was what they were trying to achieve then I think we can certainly say that they failed in that regard, and in fact I'd say actually opened the eyes of many who didn't feel strongly either way (such as myself)to the nauseating levels of self-entitlement that exist among some groups being handed everything by the state

Spanish Eyes

bb1234567 wrote: »

Yeh if it was sympathy they were trying to evoke or to or an awareness of class prejudice was what they were trying to achieve then I think we can certainly say that they failed in that regard, and in fact I'd say actually opened the eyes of many who didn't feel strongly either way (such as myself)to the nauseating levels of self-entitlement that exist among some groups being handed everything by the state

We are not allowed to question anything that IT and other outlets highlight about these issues.

Totally muzzled. Only places like this allow debate now. That is not right.

Spanish Eyes

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Like I said earlier, editorial oversight in the IT is rubbish.

The Kitty Hollands of this world need to give their head a wobble. A tiny cohort might agree, must the vast majority are not impressed at all.

I sent a brief note to the Editor not complaining about the story but the manner in which the Reporter didn't bother to do any research or omitted to mention all pertinent points if such research had been done.

The Apartments in that Estate look lovely especially if only paying 15% of your income for them irrespective of whether it is a social welfare payment or wage earned.

How did a guy new to parish manage to find himself in such a fortunate position.
Fold Housing Associate appear to specialise in accommodation for older social welfare tenants so must not be finding all this attention welcome.

Widdensushi

I am sure he would get gym membership in kurdistan, I am from Ireland and have to say I have never had gym membership so my dignity is really compromised.

Spanish Eyes

Deleted User wrote: »

I sent a brief note to the Editor not complaining about the story but the manner in which the Reporter didn't bother to do any research or omitted to mention all pertinent points if such research had been done.

The Apartments in that Estate look lovely especially if only paying 15% of your income for them irrespective of whether it is a social welfare payment or wage earned.

How did a guy new to parish manage to find himself in such a fortunate position.
Fold Housing Associate appear to specialise in accommodation for older social welfare tenants so must not be finding all this attention welcome.

I must do the same. As you say, the research was non existent just the headline "discrimination" issue, which is rubbish too AFAIS.

I'm afraid that we are being led by such so called journalists now. We cannot respond at all, that would be racist and so on. I don't know anymore. We are paying for this after all.

0ph0rce0

hahaha this is deadly, I really hope someone looks into this further.

Spanish Eyes

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

hahaha this is deadly, I really hope someone looks into this further.

That is not allowed. Forget it.

0ph0rce0

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

hahaha this is deadly, I really hope someone looks into this further.

+1
Who would love such a story?
Asking for a friend

Spanish Eyes

Deleted User wrote: »

+1
Who would love such a story?
Asking for a friend

Won't happen. It is all fixed up by the SJW crowd who listen with their mouths.

Anyway, it is a joke alright, and this didn't happen, or never could right?

We will never hear about this again.

NovemberWren

pauliebdub wrote: »

It's an outrageous sum of money to pay to accommodate a single man. It's very poor value for the taxpayer. I don't understand the rationale of buying luxury apartments when they could buy two houses for two families in a less desirable location.

i saw a Council newly-built estate c.8 years ago - and the houses were.... tremendous; though I am fairly sure that some were being bought.

also, [not so well-designed, - but sturdy built] - a few small apartments. One, ground floor; one upper floor. But, [if I remember correctly], the access to a top apartment was via a staircase almost, somehow, almost in the ground-floor apartment. And, the top faced one way, and ground faced the other. There was a garden in each, but that would be two house-holds. Bad design. but a roof. but still, bad design.

gmisk

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

hahaha this is deadly, I really hope someone looks into this further.

I doubt it....but I honestly think someone should...so....
https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/secure/ReportFraud.aspx

Seriously sus about that twitter account...

0ph0rce0

gmisk wrote: »

I doubt it....but I honestly think someone should...so....
https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/secure/ReportFraud.aspx

Seriously sus about that twitter account...

mad m

Afaik this development in Rathgar at time of build, the developer had to give council a % of apartments to council ( Part V ).

https://www.dublininquirer.com/2017/09/13/is-the-government-at-risk-of-overpaying-for-social-housing

This is also the same for the apartments in Mount Argus(19 I think) and around Dublin.

jay1988

As someone who grew up in a council house and now rents privately in a block that consists mostly of HAP or Homeless HAP tenant I find some of the comments here disgusting.

1. Not everyone who lives in council housing is scum (also plenty of homeowners/ private renters who are scum) or lazy layabouts.

2. If you buy a house/apartment/flat anywhere, its none of your ****ing business what anybody else is paying for a property in your estate or anywhere else.

The only thing I find more disgusting than that attitude is the fact the councl would spend 700-900K on a property for anyone, unless it included the cost of altering a house for an ill or disabled tenant. Surely they could build a block of apartments on land they already own, sell some privately and place some people from the housing list in the rest, take the money they've made from selling a few units and do them same again on land they already own.

gmisk

jay1988 wrote: »

As someone who grew up in a council house and now rents privately in a block that consists mostly of HAP or Homeless HAP tenant I find some of the comments here disgusting.

1. Not everyone who lives in council housing is scum (also plenty of homeowners/ private renters who are scum) or lazy layabouts.

2. If you buy a house/apartment/flat anywhere, its none of your ****ing business what anybody else is paying for a property in your estate or anywhere else.

The only thing I find more disgusting than that attitude is the fact the councl would spend 700-900K on a property for anyone, unless it included the cost of altering a house for an ill or disabled tenant. Surely they could build a block of apartments on land they already own, sell some privately and place some people from the housing list in the rest, take the money they've made from selling a few units and do them same again on land they already own.

I have already posted here about this already.
I was brought up in a council house, they are entirely necessary and they should be given to those who really need them.

1. I think zero people have said that. I think people have more took exception to the actual story...you know the original post...some lad giving out about discrimination as he can't access a gym, despite it being in the ts and cs when he signed up.
Turns out with some digging...it looks like he was also working or trying to in canada while having this apartment...definitely not legal.

I don't disagree with anything else you have said.
But maybe read the original story.

jay1988

jay1988 wrote: »

As someone who grew up in a council house and now rents privately in a block that consists mostly of HAP or Homeless HAP tenant I find some of the comments here disgusting.

1. Not everyone who lives in council housing is scum (also plenty of homeowners/ private renters who are scum) or lazy layabouts.

2. If you buy a house/apartment/flat anywhere, its none of your ****ing business what anybody else is paying for a property in your estate or anywhere else.

The only thing I find more disgusting than that attitude is the fact the councl would spend 700-900K on a property for anyone, unless it included the cost of altering a house for an ill or disabled tenant. Surely they could build a block of apartments on land they already own, sell some privately and place some people from the housing list in the rest, take the money they've made from selling a few units and do them same again on land they already own.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115367345&postcount=11 contains the only reference to Scum and can't be interpreted as a blanket accusation against all in receipt of support through social welfare for housing.

Don't you think that while citizens/tax payers should not know the personal affairs of others they have a unarguable legitimate right to know how the social welfare system works in practice and how the largesse of the Republic of Ireland is sub-divided amongst Citizens and those who are not even Citizens but may be either Asylum seekers or Economic migrants.

jay1988

gmisk wrote: »

I have already posted here about this already.
I was brought up in a council house, they are entirely necessary and they should be given to those who really need them.

1. I think zero people have said that. I think people have more took exception to the actual story...you know the original post...some lad giving out about discrimination as he can't access a gym, despite it being in the ts and cs when he signed up.
Turns out with some digging...it looks like he was also working or trying to in canada while having this apartment...definitely not legal.

I don't disagree with anything else you have said.
But maybe read the original story.

TBF this thread has gone past the original story at this stage, how many posters have come in with " why should I pay X while so and so only pays Y or while some waster who doesn't lift a finger gets a free house" The answer to that question is its none of anyone's business, quite simple really.

Also the one post that does go on about "scum" look at how many thanks that post got, so i think that attitude is a lot more prevalent around here than you're making it out to be.

jay1988

jay1988 wrote: »

TBF this thread has gone past the original story at this stage, how many posters have come in with " why should I pay X while so and so only pays Y or while some waster who doesn't lift a finger gets a free house" The answer to that question is its none of anyone's business, quite simple really.

Also the one post that does go on about "scum" look at how many thanks that post got, so i think that attitude is a lot more prevalent around here than you're making it out to be.

No, the Republic stands with the support of its Citizens. The Citizens have a right to know that the wealth of the Republic is fairly distributed otherwise the integrity of the Republic is undermined and the dignity of those who are actually Citizens diminished.
You don't seem to understand what a Republic actually is.

A republic (Latin: res publica, meaning "public affair") is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers.